September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« Where Did Jesus Claim to Be God? | Main | Challenge: When Did You Choose Your Heterosexuality? »

May 18, 2015

Comments

Which is a fancy way of saying everything that Hebrews 1 says.

Jesus doesn't have to be an angel to be chief of the angels just as the President isn't a member of the military yet he is Commander in Chief of the military.

It's important not to put too much stress on the word "Angel".

One should not always assume that it means a four-faced, four-winged creature in a wheel-within-a-wheel or some such.

The word just means "messenger". Whenever you see the word "messenger" in the OT, there's a good chance that the word being used is "malak"...the same word that is translated as "angel". And when you see the word messenger in the NT, it's often "angelon"...the same word translated as "angel".

Now, the distinctive phrase "The Angel of the LORD" in the OT should usually (always?) be understood as a reference to Jesus. Jesus is a messenger of YHWH...He is the Message itself. And He is YHWH Himself. Jesus, then, is both God and angel.

As for Joshua 5, that text doesn't actually even contain the word "angel" ("malak"). Instead, the passage refers to the Captain or Ruler of the LORD's Host.

The question here, then, seems comes down to this: Could the Ruler of the LORD's Host also be the LORD of Hosts?

I would think that the real question is: Could He not be? What else would you think that the LORD of Hosts is other than the Ruler of the LORD's Host?

And perhaps it goes without saying, that I do not think that the Ruler of the LORD's Host, mentioned in Joshua 5, is Michael.

It's Jesus.

Unfortunately, Jehovah's witness CHANGE the translation in John 1:1 and also in Hebrews I believe to support their teaching. You can sit down with them and explain to them with a Greek Bible why this is utter nonsense, but they will never believe you. The Watchtower Society is God.

Often when I sit down with Jehovah's witness with my Greek Bible and explain how John 1:1 is mistranslated by the Watchtower society, they become deeply offended and never come back. I am not sure where to start with Jehovah's witness.

"I am not sure where to start with Jehovah's witness."

Use the stuff that JWs didn't figure out how to mistranslate. An example of this is also in John 1. Here it is in the 2013 revision of the New World Translation:

[John the Baptizer] said: "I am a voice of someone crying out in the wilderness, 'Make the way of Jehovah straight,' just as Isaiah the prophet said." Now those sent were from the Pharisees. So they questioned him and said to him: "Why, then, do you baptize if you are not the Christ or Elijah or the Prophet?" John answered them: "I baptize in water. One is standing among you whom you do not know, the one coming behind me, the lace of whose sandal I am not worthy to untie."
So John is preparing the way for someone who wears sandals.

And that person is Jehovah.

You don't even have to look up the passage from Isaiah 40 that John 1 references to see that the Lord that the passage speaks of is the LORD...YHWH. The JW translation actually tells you right in John 1 that John the Baptizer is preparing the way for Jehovah, and Jehovah wears sandals.

And the Baptizer makes it crystal clear who he was sent ahead of in John 3:28 (again in the NWT)

You yourselves bear me witness that I said, 'I am not the Christ, but I have been sent ahead of that one...'
So John is preparing the way for Jesus Christ...Jehovah in sandals.

Yes WisdomLover, makes perfect sense to me, but I'm fairly certain that their answer is that the way of 'Jehovah (a word that does not exist but we'll go with it)' simply refers to God's plan to bring forth Jesus to die for our sins.

I think the real issue that Jehovah's witness have is that they literally believe the Watchtower Society is God's mouthpiece, and they are the apostles and therefore what they teach must be true. I am wondering what is the most effective and concise way to begin to poke holes in the Watchtower. Obviously, some scripture is a place to start, but something practical about their history that they don't find offensive would be a place to start. I have asked questions like 'why is it that Jehovah's Witness have teachings that change so much if God's word is unchanging?' For instance, they used to not be able to stand for pledge of allegiance but now can. Etc. etc. Yet they always get deeply offended. Trying to challenge them without offending them and having them leave is very difficult.

Numerous Protestant scholars have identified Jesus as Michael the Archangel. Awhile back, I listed three famous Reformed scholars (Calvin, Gill, Edwards) who did so, providing references and considerable context: LINK 1

One of the thread's participants provided even more germane references in one of the comments: LINK 2

Given the respect and status accredited to the Protestant scholars who have affirmed that Jesus is in fact Michael the Archangel, I think it is an extremely weak apologetic to argue with JWs that Jesus cannot be Michael the Archangel. IMO, the real issue concerns the ontology of Jesus/Michael—in other words, is Jesus/Michael a created being, or the Son of God in a real, ontological sense (i.e. God from God).


Grace and peace,

David

The comments to this entry are closed.