Jesus, Michael?

[Is 1:18]

Quote (heaven @ Sep. 22 2006,14:59)

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

Oh please….I did not in any way divert from the topic of the thread. Who is the Logos if not the pre-incarnate Yahshua? The WT claim that the logos is Michael the archangel. I disagree. My posts demonstrate this…

I note that the content of your posts is frequently irrelevant to the topic of the thread t8. As is the case with many of your “favoured” members. But these warnings are never issued to them, are they? Why can't you apply the same standard you demand of others to yourself and them?

Your neutrality as a moderator is demonstrably questionable t8.

[david]

It's true that the trinity is related, because if the trinity belief is true, then the possibility of Jesus being an angel decreases to zero. But, we have a lot of threads on the trinity. I'd rather leave this thread to the actual topic.

False beliefs are a great hindrance in accepting what appears to be true.
If someone believes in the trinity, (which is false) then good luck convincing them that Jesus may be an angel.

As one website said:
“Michael the Archangel, though, is only an angel. He is not God. . . . Jesus is God incarnate (John 1:1,14). Michael the Archangel is a powerful angel, but still only an angel.”

Since the great majority of everyone believes in the trinity, the majority of mankind cannot possibly even consider the idea that Jesus may be an angel, much less the archangel.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (david @ Sep. 22 2006,22:11)

Hi Is 1:18, first, where have you been?

Hey Dave, how's things?
I'm active on more than one TMB website, so I tend to bounce between them a bit. I also find it a time consuming exercise to be a dedicated poster, and I'm not really willing to sacrifice my family life on the alter of fruitless theological discussion – to use some biblical imagery 😉

What have you been up to?

Quote

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.”

You haven't really made a valid point here David. Yes Yahshua's Father has not been put under Yahshuas feet. But then again He does not qualify as “a thing” – being uncreated and all….the same applies to Yahshua of course.

Quote

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.

Oh….Yahshua was created??

Where is this written?

[Is 1:18]

Quote (david @ Sep. 23 2006,05:54)

It's true that the trinity is related, because if the trinity belief is true, then the possibility of Jesus being an angel decreases to zero.  But, we have a lot of threads on the trinity.  I'd rather leave this thread to the actual topic.

Hmmm… I don't recall defending the trinity in this thread, perhaps I'm wrong – maybe you can find a quote for me David?….

Quote

False beliefs are a great hindrance in accepting what appears to be true.

He he I quite agree….

Quote

If someone believes in the trinity, (which is false) then good luck convincing them that Jesus may be an angel.

You would have to be very gullible to be convinced that Jesus and MTA are the same person…..very gullible.

Quote

Since the great majority of everyone believes in the trinity, the majority of mankind cannot possibly even consider the idea that Jesus may be an angel, much less the archangel.

If there was even a shed of credible scriptural evidence for this, you might have a valid point here….

But there is not.

Blessings David

[david]

Quote

You haven't really made a valid point here David. Yes Yahshua's Father has not been put under Yahshuas feet. But then again He does not qualify as “a thing” – being uncreated and all….the same applies to Yahshua of course.

And yet,
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.”

God subjected “all things” under Jesus' feet. But when it says “all things,” it is evident that it is with the EXCEPTION of God.
Being that God is the obvious “exception,” I guess your use of the word “thing” is wrong.
Before God created any thing, God was all there was. He was every”thing.” The word thing, although it may not really be proper to ascribe to God, is a very vague word. Every”thing” is some”thing,” isn't it?
Anyway, look at that scritpure again. It says enough.

Quote

Hmmm… I don't recall defending the trinity in this thread, perhaps I'm wrong – maybe you can find a quote for me David?….

Sorry, I just assumed when t8 told you to stay on course, that would have been what you were discussing.

Quote

You would have to be very gullible to be convinced that Jesus and MTA are the same person…..very gullible.

Please save your scare tactics for someone who isn't so small minded. False reasoning does not an argument make. Trying to belittle someone isn't a sound reason to believe anything.

Quote

If there was even a shed of credible scriptural evidence for this, you might have a valid point here….

There is more than a “shed” of credible scriptural evidence. Please scroll back several pages. I list about 10 lines of scriptural evidence. That's gotta be at least a “shed.”
Actually, I don't know if it would fill a shed. Some sheds are quite large. Maybe it would fill about 9 pages on my computer.

Quote

I'm active on more than one TMB website, so I tend to bounce between them a bit.

Out of curiosity, are there other similar websites that are largely anti trinitarian?

[Admin]

To Is 1:18.

Quote (Is 1:18 @ Sep. 23 2006,05:43)

Quote (heaven @ Sep. 22 2006,14:59) 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 Oh please….I did not in any way divert from the topic of the thread. Who is the Logos if not the pre-incarnate Yahshua? The WT claim that the logos is Michael the archangel. I disagree. My posts demonstrate this… I note that the content of your posts is frequently irrelevant to the topic of the thread t8. As is the case with many of your “favoured” members. But these warnings are never issued to them, are they? Why can't you apply the same standard you demand of others to yourself and them? Your neutrality as a moderator is demonstrably questionable t8.

Thank you for your explanation. I accept your reasoning, but disagree with your conclusion. So long as we don't get completely side-tracked into the Logos.

It is my job to remind people about changing the subject. You should be able to accept that. Attacking any kind of authority because it doesn't agree with you is not a good thing though. A gentler explanation with respect would be a better way and more fitting for a christian.

thx

[Proclaimer]

Quote (david @ Sep. 23 2006,17:17)

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.

Hi david. Sure I know you haven't forced it down anyones throat. My point is that if anyone teaches speculation as truth, then in that context they are forcing it. When giving opinions or being speculative, one should always use words like “I think”, or “this works”, or “maybe”.

That way we cannot lead anyone astray with a teaching that cannot be proven by scripture. Also it may be hard to see the influence we can have on others and we should always be clear about what we teach.

Paul was a good role model with this. He would say “the Lord says” and “I say”. His “I says” were pretty good, but he said it as it was.

I have always said that opinion and speculation are good. They often help a person to seek the scriptures to see if their conviction is indeed true. If we have scriptures that teach a conviction that we may have, then of course we can teach it and with confidence too, all the while remaining humble enough to listen to others and knowing that we are not perfect.

[Proclaimer]

Quote (Adam Pastor @ Sep. 22 2006,15:00)

He was never at any time, an angelic being!

But he is called an angel isn't he?

[Adam Pastor]

And so was Paul [Gal 4.14] plus many other men using the equivalent word 'messenger'

But none of these men were angelic beings.
They were all human beings

And so was/is the Messiah!

[david]

Quote

But he is called an angel isn't he?

Hi t8. Did you just admit that Jesus is called an angel?

As for your comments on speculation, I should note that JW's themselves in their publications often say things like: “it's logical to conclude that,” or “scriptures point to” or “scriptural evidence indicates.” They have also pointed out that nowhere does the Bible expressly say that Jesus is Michael the archangel. They do say that scriptural evidence makes it logical to conclude that he is.

[Mercy]

Do you believe Christ pre-existed Adam?

[Mercy]

I meant to say.

Adam Pastor, do you believe Jesus pre-existed?

I am sure the above post would confuse people that I meant the garden of eden adam.

[Is 1:18]

Quote (david @ Sep. 23 2006,07:44)

And yet, 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.” God subjected “all things” under Jesus' feet.  But when it says “all things,” it is evident that it is with the EXCEPTION of God. Being that God is the obvious “exception,” I guess your use of the word “thing” is wrong. Before God created any thing, God was all there was.  He was every”thing.”  The word thing, although it may not really be proper to ascribe to God, is a very vague word.  Every”thing” is some”thing,” isn't it?   Anyway, look at that scritpure again.  It says enough.

David, as I said – If God were a “thing” you would have a legitimate point here. But God is not a created “thing” therefore does not qualify as an exception. There is no debate here….

Quote

Sorry, I just assumed when t8 told you to stay on course, that would have been what you were discussing.

No problem.

Quote

You would have to be very gullible to be convinced that Jesus and MTA are the same person…..very gullible. Please save your scare tactics for someone who isn't so small minded.  False reasoning does not an argument make.  Trying to belittle someone isn't a sound reason to believe anything.

Well I did use unnecessarily strong and abrasive language here, so I'm not surprised you took offense. I didn't really intend to insult you just for the sake of it. It's my honest and considered opinion that gullibility is requisite to be convinced that MTA and Yahshua are one and the same person. I say this because, IMHO, the scriptural evidence that argues against this premise is far more substantive and impressive than the evidence for. It really is a no brainer….

Quote

There is more than a “shed” of credible scriptural evidence.  Please scroll back several pages.  I list about 10 lines of scriptural evidence.  That's gotta be at least a “shed.”   Actually, I don't know if it would fill a shed.  Some sheds are quite large.  Maybe it would fill about 9 pages on my computer.

He he…there's that sense of humour that we know and love David. I do like your wit….(not being sarcastic, I genuinely do like it).

I'm sure you understood what I meant David regardless of my grammatical shortcomings, and hey….we all make these errors from time to time:

Quote David:
“Another reason I am leary of trusting archaeology findings against the Bible is that the Bible writers said the apostasy was “already at work” in the first century.  Men were already slipping in, false teachers.  The further we get from the first century, the less I trust it.  The Bible is fairly clear I think.”

Quote

Out of curiosity, are there other similar websites that are largely anti trinitarian?

I suppose so David, I know of a christadelphian one…..

Blessings

[Is 1:18]

Quote (heaven @ Sep. 23 2006,10:51)

Thank you for your explanation. I accept your reasoning, but disagree with your conclusion. So long as we don't get completely side-tracked into the Logos.

t8, the logos IS the topic of this thread…

How can you not see this?

Quote

It is my job to remind people about changing the subject. You should be able to accept that.

I take your point, and will try to remember this next time I actually divert from the topic of the thread

Quote

Attacking any kind of authority because it doesn't agree with you is not a good thing though. A gentler explanation with respect would be a better way and more fitting for a christian.

I think you can expect people to become annoyed with you (and express that annoyance) when you falsely accuse them, and demonstrate clear bias in your role as a moderator.

That's all I have to say, and i'll leave it there. There is enough acrimony at this site at present, so I'll try not to add to it….

Blessings

[david]

Quote

David, as I said – If God were a “thing” you would have a legitimate point here. But God is not created “thing” therefore does not qualify as an exception. There is no debate here….

I agree. There is no debate. As this scripture proves you wrong without question:

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.”

It would not be an exception if there was no way God could be thought of this way. Would it?

How do you spel “leerie” anyvay?

[Is 1:18]

Okay David, let's cut to the heart of the issue. Can I ask you to please supply scriptural evidence that you think emphatically bears out that:

a) Yahshua is a created being, and

b) Yahshua is the archangel Michael.

Maybe, to save time, you could cite what you believe to be the best verse or passage that supports both of the above statements. I will then give you my considered opinion on each. Then I'll counter with what I think are the best proof texts that argue the opposite, and you can tell me what you think….

We may see where the truth lies (I hope).

[Is 1:18]

Quote (david @ Sep. 23 2006,22:49)

How do you spel “leerie” anyvay?

I stand corrected, “leary” is in fact a word:

leary

n : United States psychologist who experimented with psychoactive drugs (including LSD) and became a well-known advocate of their use (1920-1996) [syn: Leary, Tim Leary, Timothy Leary, Timothy Francis Leary]
From here

So what you acttually meant was:

“Another reason I am [Famous American Psychologist] of trusting archaeology findings against the Bible is that the Bible writers said the apostasy was “already at work” in the first century.  Men were already slipping in, false teachers.  The further we get from the first century, the less I trust it.  The Bible is fairly clear I think.”

[Adam Pastor]

Quote (Mercy @ Sep. 23 2006,21:56)

I meant to say. Adam Pastor,  do you believe Jesus pre-existed?

No! I don't.
Jesus came into existence at his conception like every other human being; he was foreordained before Adam!

(1 Pet 1:20) Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Look again, at my previous post that I sent you!

[david]

Quote

I stand corrected, “leary” is in fact a word:

That's ok Is 1:18. We all make mistakes. You stand corrected.

You had stated:

“But God is not a created “thing” therefore does not qualify as an exception.”
And yet that scripture itself says that God is the exception. How odd.
Also, I didn't say God was a created thing. In the most vague sense of the word, everything is a thing.

Quote

Okay David, let's cut to the heart of the issue. Can I ask you to please supply scriptural evidence that you think emphatically bears out that: a) Yahshua is a created being, and

Not in this thread. There is a thread I believe that is devoted specifically to that subject. I think there is.

Quote

b) Yahshua is the archangel Michael.

I can't give scriptural evidence that “emphatically” declares Jesus as Michael. In fact, I've already stated that it can't categorically said that he is Michael. I only suggest that there is a great deal of evidence that points to this conclusion, and that for the most part the only evidence that points against it is trinitarian beliefs that Jesus is God, and therefore can't possibly be an angel.

Quote

Maybe, to save time, you could cite what you believe to be the best verse or passage that supports both of the above statements. I will then give you my considered opinion on each. Then I'll counter with what I think are the best proof texts that argue the opposite, and you can tell me what you think….

Ok, fine. You'll state Hebrew 1, and 2.
First, since I know you'll go to this place, I may as well tell you what I'll say in responce:

MOST USED ARGUMENT AGAINST THIS BELIEF: HEBREWS 1:5,13; 2:5

Hebrews 1:5 – “For to what angel did God ever say, ‘Thou art my Son…’”
Hebrews 1:13 – “But to what angel has he ever said, ‘Sit at my right hand…’”
Hebrews 2:5 – “For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come…”
(Revised Standard Version)

Since God said to Jesus ‘Thou art my Son’, ‘Sit at my right hand’ and subjected the coming world to him, then it would appear Jesus is not an angel, UNLESS JESUS IS AN ANGEL IN A WAY THAT DIFFERENTIATES HIM FROM OTHERS.

HEBREWS 1 AND 2 COULD JUST AS EASILY BE DIFFERENTIATING JESUS AS AN ANGEL FROM OTHER ANGELS AS IT COULD MEAN THAT HE IS NOT AN ANGEL.

EXAMPLE 1
To illustrate this point, look at Psalm 82:7, where Jehovah said to Israelite judges:
“Nevertheless, you shall die like men and fall like any prince.” (Revised Standard Version)
Does the expression “you shall die like men” mean that those judges were not men? Or does it mean that they were being differentiated from ordinary men? In a similar way, the Hebrew passages could be complying with this same idea, that is, that Jesus though an angel, is to be distinguished from “ordinary” angels.

EXAMPLE 2
Another example might be brought forth to demonstrate this thinking. The account at Acts 23:9 reads:
“And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part arose, and strove, saying we find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.” (KJV)
Some scholars understand that the “spirit” referred to here is a demon while the “angel” referred to one of the faithful holy angels. But does that mean that “angels” are not “spirits” since the passage reads “spirit or an angel”? No, the Scriptures are plain that angels are spirits. (See Psalm 104:1, 4; Hebrew 1:7; 1 Kings 22:20-22.) Notwithstanding that fact, angels are differentiated from spirits at Acts 23:9. Could this same principle apply with respect to the citations from Hebrews 1:5, 13 and 2:5 and the question of Jesus’ status as an angel?

So, now for what you asked. I'll give you one scripture:

I'll call it “point 6” and I'll break it up into three parts:

POINT 6
JESUS CALLS OUT WITH AN ARCHANGELS VOICE.
Commenting on one aspect of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, Apostle Paul wrote:
“because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. (1 Thessalonians 4:16) (NWT)
If Jesus is not the archangel in this event and he is superior to the archangel, then why would he perform this act as though he was someone of lower rank? Wouldn’t he be using an archangel’s voice because he is an archangel?
At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (RS), the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as “the archangel’s call,” and Jude 9 says that the archangel is Michael.
It is reasonable to conclude that only an archangel would call “with an archangel’s voice.” Would it be appropriate to liken Jesus’ commanding call to that of someone lesser in authority?
For example, a king is above a noble. If you have a king, someone in great power and he calls out something of importance, you wouldn’t say: ‘He called out with a nobles voice,’ unless the King was a also a noble. If the king wasn’t a noble, you would say: He called out with the voice of a king. To say he called out with a nobles voice would be to diminish him, UNLESS HE WAS BOTH A NOBLE AND A KING.
It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Mt 28:18; Re 17:14)
If the designation “archangel” applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to “an archangel’s voice” would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.
Reasonably, then, the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ.

POINT 6B
Also, notice the second half of 1 Thess 4:16: “because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.”
Now let’s look at Jesus’ words:
““Most truly I say to YOU, The hour is coming, and it is now, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who have given heed will live. For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to do judging, because Son of man he is. Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:25-29)
A comparison of these two scriptures seems to indicate that Jesus and Michael are the same person.
It is Jehovah’s will for Jesus to resurrect the dead. (John 6:38-40) Jesus issues “a commanding call” to the dead to come forth, just as he did on occasion while on earth. (John 11:43) But now he calls, not with a man’s voice as he did then, but with all the power of “an archangel’s voice” (en
pho·né arkh·ag·gélou). However, only an archangel can call with an archangel’s voice! And no one but Jesus has been given the authority to resurrect the dead. Again, at John 5 and 1 Thessalonians we see the same event–one names Michael, and one names Jesus.

POINT 6C
For those who said: ‘It was just an archangels voice accompanying Jesus, but it wasn’t Jesus himself who had the commanding call.’ John 5:25,28 solves the problem: “the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God.” So in 1 thessalonians, its the archangel's voice, but in John 5, it is the voice of the Son of God! One cannot be wrong and the other right. Michael the Archangel must be Jesus! In both Thessalonians and John we see that the voice causes the resurrection of life. The dead in Christ will rise when they hear His voice! This is the same event and Jesus and Michael must be the same person.

I don't know if that counts as one point or three, since it's really only one scripture.

david

[Is 1:18]

Quote (david @ Sep. 24 2006,03:07)

You had stated: “But God is not a created “thing” therefore does not qualify as an exception.” And yet that scripture itself says that God is the exception.  How odd. Also, I didn't say God was a created thing.  In the most vague sense of the word, everything is a thing.

PROVERBS 16:4
The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil

JOHN 1:3
3All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

COLOSSIANS 1:16
For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him.

It seems evident to me that the words “thing” or “things” are used by Biblical writers in reference to the created order. I don't believe Yahshua or His Father are ever designated in the Bible by the word “thing”. If you can produce evidence to the contrary, lets have it…

Quote

Okay David, let's cut to the heart of the issue. Can I ask you to please supply scriptural evidence that you think emphatically bears out that: a) Yahshua is a created being, and Not in this thread.  There is a thread I believe that is devoted specifically to that subject.  I think there is.

Why not in this thread? It appears to me to be the perfect place for this debate….

Quote

b) Yahshua is the archangel Michael. I can't give scriptural evidence that “emphatically” declares Jesus as Michael.  In fact, I've already stated that it can't categorically said that he is Michael.  I only suggest that there is a great deal of evidence that points to this conclusion, and that for the most part the only evidence that points against it is trinitarian beliefs that Jesus is God, and therefore can't possibly be an angel.

If it is factual that there is “a great deal of evidence” that points to the conclusion that Yahshua is MTA then you should have no trouble selecting and submitting the best proof text from the abundance that you have at your disposal….right?

Quote

Maybe, to save time, you could cite what you believe to be the best verse or passage that supports both of the above statements. I will then give you my considered opinion on each. Then I'll counter with what I think are the best proof texts that argue the opposite, and you can tell me what you think…. Ok, fine.  You'll state Hebrew 1, and 2. First, since I know you'll go to this place, I may as well tell you what I'll say in responce: MOST USED ARGUMENT AGAINST THIS BELIEF: HEBREWS 1:5,13; 2:5 Hebrews 1:5 – “For to what angel did God ever say, ‘Thou art my Son…’” Hebrews 1:13 – “But to what angel has he ever said, ‘Sit at my right hand…’” Hebrews 2:5 – “For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come…” (Revised Standard Version) Since God said to Jesus ‘Thou art my Son’, ‘Sit at my right hand’ and subjected the coming world to him, then it would appear Jesus is not an angel, UNLESS JESUS IS AN ANGEL IN A WAY THAT DIFFERENTIATES HIM FROM OTHERS. HEBREWS 1 AND 2 COULD JUST AS EASILY BE DIFFERENTIATING JESUS AS AN ANGEL FROM OTHER ANGELS AS IT COULD MEAN THAT HE IS NOT AN ANGEL. EXAMPLE 1 To illustrate this point, look at Psalm 82:7, where Jehovah said to Israelite judges: “Nevertheless, you shall die like men and fall like any prince.” (Revised Standard Version) Does the expression “you shall die like men” mean that those judges were not men?  Or does it mean that they were being differentiated from ordinary men?  In a similar way, the Hebrew passages could be complying with this same idea, that is, that Jesus though an angel, is to be distinguished from “ordinary” angels. EXAMPLE 2 Another example might be brought forth to demonstrate this thinking. The account at Acts 23:9 reads: “And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part arose, and strove, saying we find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.” (KJV) Some scholars understand that the “spirit” referred to here is a demon while the “angel” referred to one of the faithful holy angels. But does that mean that “angels” are not “spirits” since the passage reads “spirit or an angel”? No, the Scriptures are plain that angels are spirits. (See Psalm 104:1, 4; Hebrew 1:7; 1 Kings 22:20-22.)  Notwithstanding that fact, angels are differentiated from spirits at Acts 23:9. Could this same principle apply with respect to the citations from Hebrews 1:5, 13 and 2:5 and the question of Jesus’ status as an angel? So, now for what you asked.  I'll give you one scripture: I'll call it “point 6” and I'll break it up into three parts: POINT 6 JESUS CALLS OUT WITH AN ARCHANGELS VOICE. Commenting on one aspect of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, Apostle Paul wrote: “because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. (1 Thessalonians 4:16) (NWT) If Jesus is not the archangel in this event and he is superior to the archangel, then why would he perform this act as though he was someone of lower rank? Wouldn’t he be using an archangel’s voice because he is an archangel? At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (RS), the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as “the archangel’s call,” and Jude 9 says that the archangel is Michael. It is reasonable to conclude that only an archangel would call “with an archangel’s voice.”  Would it be appropriate to liken Jesus’ commanding call to that of someone lesser in authority? For example, a king is above a noble.  If you have a king, someone in great power and he calls out something of importance, you wouldn’t say: ‘He called out with a nobles voice,’ unless the King was a also a noble.  If the king wasn’t a noble, you would say: He called out with the voice of a king.  To say he called out with a nobles voice would be to diminish him, UNLESS HE WAS BOTH A NOBLE AND A KING. It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Mt 28:18; Re 17:14) If the designation “archangel” applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to “an archangel’s voice” would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God. Reasonably, then, the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ. POINT 6B Also, notice the second half of 1 Thess 4:16: “because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Chris t will rise first.”   Now let’s look at Jesus’ words: ““Most truly I say to YOU, The hour is coming, and it is now, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who have given heed will live. For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to do judging, because Son of man he is. Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:25-29) A comparison of these two scriptures seems to indicate that Jesus and Michael are the same person. It is Jehovah’s will for Jesus to resurrect the dead. (John 6:38-40)  Jesus issues “a commanding call” to the dead to come forth, just as he did on occasion while on earth. (John 11:43) But now he calls, not with a man’s voice as he did then, but with all the power of “an archangel’s voice” (en pho·né arkh·ag·gélou). However, only an archangel can call with an archangel’s voice! And no one but Jesus has been given the authority to resurrect the dead.   Again, at John 5 and 1 Thessalonians we see the same event–one names Michael, and one names Jesus. POINT 6C For those who said: ‘It was just an archangels voice accompanying Jesus, but it wasn’t Jesus himself who had the commanding call.’  John 5:25,28 solves the problem: “the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God.”  So in 1 thessalonians, its the archangel's voice, but in John 5, it is the voice of the Son of God! One cannot be wrong and the other right. Michael the Archangel must be Jesus!  In both Thessalonians and John we see that the voice causes the resurrection of life. The dead in Christ will rise when they hear His voice! This is the same event and Jesus and Michael must be the same person. I don't know if that counts as one point or three, since it's really only one scripture. david

He he….you are jumping the gun here David. The correct order is:

1. You submit what you consider to be your best proof texts in favour of the WT assertions that 'Yahshua is a created being' and 'Yahshua and MTA are the same person'….

2. Then I submit my rebuttles….

3. I then submit my best proof texts….

4. Then you submit your rebuttles.

It's a fair format. The ball is in your court David….if you do not wish to engage in this debate, just say so….

Blessings

[Author]

Posts