- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Bastian @ Nov. 16 2005,19:23) Hi Everyone, I registered today. I usually do not post on message boards, but I liked what I read here.
Jesus is not Michael.
Hebrews 1:13
To which of the Angels did God ever say, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a foot stool.
Have a great day B.
Hebrews 1:13 To which of the Angels did God ever say, sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a foot stool?Michael became a man and lived His life out as the flesh and blood Son of God.
One thing we have to keep in mind is that it wasn't Jesus' birth through Mary that God asks this question but rather it was His reserrection.
Acts 13:33-34 God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee. And as concerning that he raised him up from the dead, now no more to return to corruption, he said on this wise, I will give you the sure mercies of David.
Revelation 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, who is the faithful witness, and the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood.
Romans 1:4 and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.
Jesus Himself was not an angel once He became sinful flesh. The man Jesus was begotten of God by His resurrection from the dead.
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
Jesus is not a “thing” David. He is a creator of “things”. That is what the Bible affirms. I'll give you plenty of evidence for this in my last installment (due in the weekend – busy times).
Hi,
Dan 12.1
” Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people will arise”
How could anyone think that the Son of God has only such limited restrictive role as being in charge of the Jewish people? He is far greater than that, the Lord of such lords and the prince of such Princes. He serves only God and has been given ALL authority under God.
Dan 8.25 about an evil king
“… He will even oppose the Prince of princes..”
No . The Son of God is shown in triumphant glory presented to the Father in Dan 7.9f. He is no angel. He is far greater as the only begotten Son.It doesn't say he is in charge of the Jewish people. It says he stands guard over God's people. Of course he has been given all authority in heaven and on earth. But it's only God's people that he will be standing guard over when that time comes.
Daniel 12:1 reads: “During that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people.” This verse foretells these two distinct things regarding Michael: one, that he “is standing,” suggesting a state of affairs that extends over a period of time; two, that he “will stand up,” suggesting an event during that period of time. First, we want to know the period when Michael is “standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel’s] people.”
The reference to his “standing” reminds us of the way that this term is used elsewhere in the book of Daniel. It often refers to the action of a king, such as his taking up royal power.—Daniel 11:2-4, 7, 20, 21.It is evident that the angel was here pointing to a period of time specified elsewhere in Bible prophecy. Jesus called it his “presence” (Greek, pa·rou·si´a), when he would rule as King in heaven. (Matthew 24:37-39) This time period is also called “the last days” and “the time of the end.” (2 Timothy 3:1; Daniel 12:4, 9)
Ever since that period began, Michael has been standing as King in heaven.—Compare Isaiah 11:10; Revelation 12:7-9.
When, though, does Michael “stand up”? When he rises up to take special action. This, Jesus will do in the future. Revelation 19:11-16 prophetically describes Jesus as the mighty Messianic King riding at the head of an angelic army and bringing destruction upon enemies of God. Daniel 12:1 continues: “And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time.” As Jehovah’s Chief Executioner, Christ will bring an end to the entire wicked system of things during the foretold “great tribulation.”—Matthew 24:21; Jeremiah 25:33; 2 Thessalonians 1:6-8; Revelation 7:14; 16:14, 16.
Hi david,
By calling the Son of God an angel you denigrate him.
Try Hebrews 1.3f
“..he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High, having become as MUCH BETTER THAN THE ANGELS, as he has inherited a more excellent name than they”“And let all the angels of God worship him”
“but to which of the angels has He ever said 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet'?”
“He did not subject to angels the world to come”
“You have made him for a little while lower than the angels”
” But we do not see him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely Jesus…”
” For assuredly He does not give help to angels but he gives help to the descendant of Abraham..”All these verses state that Jesus is not an angel by contrasting him with the angels.This is foolish nonsense to argue against such a wealth of information shown you here in 2 chapters by The Spirit of God david.
Hi david,
Hebrews 1-2 makes it abundantly plain that Jesus is not an angel.There is no doubt that Michael is an angel.
By a process of simple deduction then Jesus Christ is not Michael.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 17 2005,08:43) Hi david,
By calling the Son of God an angel you denigrate him.
Try Hebrews 1.3f
“..he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High, having become as MUCH BETTER THAN THE ANGELS, as he has inherited a more excellent name than they”“And let all the angels of God worship him”
“but to which of the angels has He ever said 'Sit at my right hand until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet'?”
“He did not subject to angels the world to come”
“You have made him for a little while lower than the angels”
” But we do not see him who was made for a little while lower than the angels, namely Jesus…”
” For assuredly He does not give help to angels but he gives help to the descendant of Abraham..”All these verses state that Jesus is not an angel by contrasting him with the angels.This is foolish nonsense to argue against such a wealth of information shown you here in 2 chapters by The Spirit of God david.
How can Yahweh inherit a name better than the angels?“..he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on High, having become as MUCH BETTER THAN THE ANGELS, as he has inherited a more excellent name than they”
The key to interpreting the above verse is found in understanding the inheritence.
Hi k4c,
The triumphant return of Jesus to his heavenly Father in heaven and his receiving of praise and glory is shown in prophecy in Dan 7.13f
” I kept looking in the night visions and behold, with the clouds of heaven one like a son of man was coming, and he came up to the Ancient of Days and was presented before Him. And to him was given dominion, glory and a kingdom that all the peoples, nations and men of every language might serve him. His dominion will not pass away;and his kingdom is one which will not be destroyed”Hi david,
Surely you can see that Heb 1-2 shows us Jesus is not an angel and not Michael.
If you can see this what are you going to do?Will you say you have been wrong?
Will you agree your denominational teaching is wrong?
Will you see that such error is evil?How will you educate your friends to repent of this vain, speculative wrong and evil teaching?
Quote Hebrews 1-2 makes it abundantly plain that Jesus is not an angel. There is no doubt that Michael is an angel.
By a process of simple deduction then Jesus Christ is not Michael.
Why is it that whenever I provide this simple processes of deduction, you accuse me of speculation?
Nick, what is an angel exactly? What is a son of God? Is it a spirit creature? Is Jesus a spirit creature?
Based on previous discussions, I know you picture angels as having literal wings and most likely picture Jesus as a person like in the movies with long hair, and the two images don't match up, so they can't be the same.
Jesus is a spirit creature.Both the Hebrew mal·´akh´ and the Greek ag´ge·los 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)
I know Jesus came to provide his life as a ransom. But that was not all he did. Repeatedly we are told that he was “sent forth.” He had a definite message to declare. “Also to other cities I must declare the good news of the kingdom of God, BECAUSE FOR THIS I WAS SENT FORTH.” (Lk 4:43)
Angels are sometimes termed spirits; that which is spirit is invisible and powerful. Thus we read: “A spirit came out and stood before Jehovah”; “Are they not all spirits for public service?” (1Ki 22:21; Heb 1:14) Having invisible spiritual bodies, they make their abode “in the heavens.” (Mr 12:25; 1Co 15:44, 50) They are also termed “sons of the true God.”
Was Jesus a son of God? Does that description fit him at all?I'm not saying Jesus wasn't above the other angels. I'm not saying he wasn't the first, the only begotten. I'm saying we need to look at what the scriptures say about angels, what the term angel means, and ignore our preconcieved stereotypes based on who knows what.
david.
Hi david,
Scripture defines angels such as:
Heb 1.14
“Are they not ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation?”Is this how you see the Son of God? A simple servant messenger? You continue to denigrate and deny him and you also insult the Holy Spirit as only the power of God. Jesus humbled himself and accepted these righteous demands of God being made for a little while less than the angels, but he is a glorious divine being.[phil 2 6f]
OK God is a being
The Son of God is a being
Angels are beings
Man is a being.
But man is not and angel or Jesus or God.God is a spiritual being
The Word is a spiritual being
Angels are spiritual beings
Man is a living being.But Adam is not an angel or the Son of God or God Himself.
Just because both divine beings and angels are spirit does not mean they are the same.Where do you get this false logic from?
Jesus Christ is Jehovah’s chief MINISTER (di·a´ko·nos).
At least, that's what the Bible says. Whether you want to believe it or not…
He “became a minister of those who are circumcised in behalf of God’s truthfulness, so as to verify the promises He made to their forefathers,” also, “that the nations might glorify God for his mercy.” Therefore, “on him nations will rest their hope.”—Ro 15:8-12.
He is not a simple messenger, nor did I say that. He is second only to Jehovah. But he is a spirit creature, created. He fulfilled his role which included bringing a message of salvation, the greatest message ever given. And yes, you say the angels (spirite “messengers”) are ministers. It's true. It's also true that Jesus was also described as a minister.I didn't read understand your logic, and it doesn't resemble anything I said.
Jesus said: “The Son of man came, not to be ministered to, but to MINISTER and to give his soul a ransom in exchange for many.” (Matthew 20:28) As a minister, whose orders did Jesus obey? To whom did he minister? And how? Jesus obeyed the orders of his heavenly Father. (John 8:28) And, to start with, he ministered to the Jews only. (Romans 15:8) But, ultimately, his ministry was for the benefit of all right-hearted persons.—John 3:16.
Nick, if quoting these scriptures is somehow denigrating Jesus, then you have gotten your ideas from the wrong place.
It's true that Jesus was above the other spirit creation. He was the only begotten son. But he was God's son, just as they were sons of God. He was a spirit creation, as they were. He is definitely above them. He has been given great power and authority…from Jehovah.
But, he is a spirit, as are the heavenly spirits (angels).Hi david,
This is the sort of logic you useAngel means messenger.
Jesus brought a message of salvation
Thus Jesus is an angel.Angels are messengers but all messengers are not angels.
The apostles were also messengers of the gospel of God. Were they angels? What of the donkey that spoke from God, or the human messengers shown throughout scripture? Are they all angels too?
No, but you believe it is crazy to imagine that Jesus could not be described as an angel (literally “messenger” but meaning spirit creature)
Jesus was both a messenger and a spirit creature. The angels are called “sons of God.” Jesus was God's Son.
You say, 'But the Bible defines angels as “ministering spirits.”'
I show you that Jesus was clearly a spirit and is a spirit now, and is Jehovah's chief minister. (Rom 15; Mat 20) He seems to fit even YOUR definition of angel.I'm not saying he's equal with angels. (See below) I'm saying your image of what the word angels means is not quite right, maybe not broad enough.
What, specifically are angels in your mind Nick?PHILIPPIANS 2:5-9
“Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men. More than that, when he found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death, yes, death on a torture stake. For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name,”I'm also wondering what you think the Bible means when it says God exalted Jesus to “a superior position.”
david.
At Philippians 2:9, Paul said about Jesus: “God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name.” What is this new name?
Something else just occured to me. When I quoted Phil 2:9 in the post above, it mentions that Jesus was given a name.
This in itself should help us with the idea that Jesus can only possess one name, all the time.
As the context in Philippians chapter 2 shows, Jesus received his elevated name after his resurrection. Before that, he did not possess it.
What is Jesus’ high name? Isaiah 9:6 helps us to answer. In prophesying about the coming Messiah, Jesus, that verse says:
“The princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his NAME will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” Here Jesus’ “name” has to do with his high position and authority, which is also how we understand “the name that is above every other name” mentioned at Philippians 2:9.
Of course, “Wonderful Counselor” etc, aren't really names, as Jesus or Michael. But Phil 2:9 shows that God giving Jesus a different name isn't insanely impossible, as some suggest. As I've said before, the Bible shows that God often changes names when someone important takes on another role.david.
Quote (david @ Nov. 19 2005,05:11) No, but you believe it is crazy to imagine that Jesus could not be described as an angel (literally “messenger” but meaning spirit creature)
Jesus was both a messenger and a spirit creature. The angels are called “sons of God.” Jesus was God's Son.
You say, 'But the Bible defines angels as “ministering spirits.”'
I show you that Jesus was clearly a spirit and is a spirit now, and is Jehovah's chief minister. (Rom 15; Mat 20) He seems to fit even YOUR definition of angel.I'm not saying he's equal with angels. (See below) I'm saying your image of what the word angels means is not quite right, maybe not broad enough.
What, specifically are angels in your mind Nick?PHILIPPIANS 2:5-9
“Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God. No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and came to be in the likeness of men. More than that, when he found himself in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient as far as death, yes, death on a torture stake. For this very reason also God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every [other] name,”I'm also wondering what you think the Bible means when it says God exalted Jesus to “a superior position.”
david.
Hi david,
God is a being.God is spirit.do you say God also is an angel?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
