Polls

Does the 2014 JW book "God's Kingdom Rules!" provide an accurate historical deptiction of Bible Students and the historical progression to todays Jehovah's Wintesses?

View Results

Translator

English flagItalian flagKorean flagChinese (Simplified) flagChinese (Traditional) flagPortuguese flagGerman flagFrench flag
Spanish flagJapanese flagRussian flagGreek flagDutch flagBulgarian flagCzech flagCroatian flag
Danish flagFinnish flagHindi flagPolish flagRomanian flagSwedish flagNorwegian flagFilipino flag
Hebrew flagIndonesian flagLithuanian flagSerbian flagUkrainian flagTurkish flag  

Articles & Posts

Who is Michael the Archangel?

Click here for the new and updated article:  Who is Michael the Archangel 2014_08_27

Below is the older version of the article which is less complete.

Is Michael the Archangel Jesus or is Michael just a mighty angel?  Does the Bible answer this question?

We believe that a careful examination of scriptures will provide compelling evidence that Michael the Archangel is Jesus.  Yet since Hebrews 1:4-14 shows that Jesus is greater than the angels, how can Jesus possibly be an angel?

The honest and sincere student of scripture will want to carefully examine the evidence. 

 

WHAT DOES THE NAME “MICHAEL” MEAN?

The word “Michael” in Daniel 12:1 comes from Strong’s 4317 meaning, “who is like God.”  Brown Driver & Briggs Hebrew Lexicon also agrees with this definition.

Who else is like God but Jesus Himself?

 

CAN JESUS BE CALLED AN ANGEL?

The word “angel” itself, Strong’s #32 is defined as, “a messenger; especially an “angel”; by implication, a pastor.”

On occasion, the Greek and Hebrew words for angel simply have the meaning of messenger and do not refer to angels. Here are examples where the Greek and Hebrew do not refer to angels:

Matt 11:10 (NKJV ) “For this is he of whom it is written: “Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, Who will prepare Your way before You.’”  [Here Jesus is speaking of John]

Luke 7:24 (NKJV) “When the messengers of John had departed, He (Jesus) began to speak to the multitudes concerning John:”

James 2:25 (NKJV ) “Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received the messengers and sent them out another way?” 

Gen 32:3 (KJV) “And Jacob sent messengers before him to Esau his brother” 

Many say Jesus cannot be Michael because Jesus is not an angel.  The scriptures quoted above prove that the Greek and Hebrew words for angel broadly mean “messenger” and can apply to others besides angels.  Jesus is God’s ultimate and supreme messenger.  That is why he is called the “Logos” or the Word of God, i.e. God’s spokesperson or messenger.

Jesus is called an “angel” or “messenger in Malachi 3:1 (NKJV)  where we read, “Behold, I send My messenger (John the Baptist Matt 11:10-11), And he will prepare the way before Me  (Yawheh). And the Lord (Jesus), whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple (“Which Temple ye are.” 1 Cor 3:17), Even the Messenger (Jesus) of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,” Says the LORD of hosts.

In Revelation 20:1, 2 we have a great angel coming down from heaven with a chain in his hand to bind Satan. This great angel is generally accepted to be Jesus who is the one responsible for binding Satan.

Jesus  is the “seed of the woman” who crushes the serpent’s head.  Hebrews 2:14 (RVIC) says, “… that through death he might bring to nought the one having the power of death, that is, the devil;”  Is there an angel powerful enough to bind Satan?  Of course not.

Yes, it is Jesus who binds Satan. Gen 3:15 shows that the seed (Jesus) crushes Satan’s head. More broadly, it is The Christ, Head and Body who binds Satan (Rom 16:20). Jesus death’ on the Cross guaranteed Him the authority to destroy Satan (Hebrews 2:14).

 

IS JESUS THE ARCHANGEL?

We find the word archangel in 1 Thes 4:16 and Jude 9.  It is from Strong’s 743 meaning “a chief angel,”  Let’s break the word up into its two parts.  “Arch” is Strong’s 757 meaning, “to be first (in political rank or power):– reign (rule) over”  The other part, “angel” is from Strong’s 32, meaning, “a messenger, especially an angel.” 

So how does comparing 1 Thess 4:16 and Jude 9 help us to identify who Michael is?  Well we know that Jesus descends from heaven with the “voice of Archangel” and that Michael is the “Archangel.”  So therefore, Michael must be Jesus.  After all, I cannot have your voice, even if I can use your trumpet.  So Jesus must be using his own voice, yes the voice of the archangel (meaning chief messenger – the Word of God – the Logos). 

 

HOW DOES THE WORD “PRINCE” HELP US IDENTIFY WHO MICHAEL IS?

In Daniel 12:1 (NKJV), Michael is described as, “the great prince (Strong’s 8269)who stands watch over the sons of your people (Israel).”

Compare Isaiah 9:6 which calls Jesus the “prince of peace” (Strong’s 8269)

Jesus is also called the “prince” in the New Testament

Acts 3:15: “prince of life”

Acts 5:11: “prince and Savior”

Remember how in Daniel 12:1, Michael is described as, “the great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people (Israel).”

Compare with Matthew 2:6:

Matt 2:6: “out of thee [Bethlehem] shall come forth a governor, Who shall be shepherd of my people Israel.”  (Micah 5:2 Governor/Ruler = Strongs 4910-6.)

In both cases Michael/Jesus is ruler over Israel.  Does Israel have two spiritual rulers – Michael and Jesus?  Of course not.  Jesus is Michael.

In contrast, in Eph 2:2 Satan is the “prince of the power of the air”

 

IS MICHAEL THE CHIEF PRINCE OR ONE OF MANY EQUAL PRINCES?

The argument that Michael is “one [of many] of the Chief Princes” in Daniel 10:13 is not correct.

Notice the more accurate rendering in Young’s Literal Translation –

Daniel 10:13 `And the head of the kingdom of Persia is standing over-against me twenty and one days, and lo, Michael, first of the chief heads, hath come in to help me, and I have remained there near the kings of Persia;”

Albert Barnes’ Commentary:   “the first.” That is, the first in rank of the “princes,” or the angels. In other words, Michael, the archangel.””

John Gill’s Commentary:  “…is no other than Christ the Son of God… who is “one,” or “the first of the chief Princes””

The word “first of,” sometimes translated “one of” is Strongs 259 meaning, “a numeral from 258; properly, united, i.e. one; or (as an ordinal) first:” This word is translated “first” four (4) times in the book of Daniel, i.e. Dan 11:1 which says, “…in the first year of Darius the Mede…” KJV.  So we see that Daniel 10:13 is not indicating that there are several chief heads or princes.

The word translated “heads” or more often “princes” is Strongs 8269, the same Hebrew word as in Daniel 12:1 associated with Michael the Archangel who is the great prince.

The word “chief” as in “chief princes” is from Strongs 7223 and it means “first, in place, time or rank.”

So Michael is the first or number one prince.  In other words, Michael is Jesus.

Dan 12:1 calls him the “GREAT prince” and Dan 10:21 calls him “Michael your prince.”  Over Israel, God would have appointed His highest ranking prince.  Right?  Is there a prince that ranks higher than Jesus?   Another spirit being would not have been given more responsibility and authority than Jesus.

JESUS APPEARED TO MOSES?

Paul tells us about Jesus in Hebrews 3:3 that He, “…was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house.” So Jesus is the one that built Moses’ house (the nation of Israel under the Law Covenant).  As the builder of the house, Jesus was the main messenger appearing to Moses at the burning bush (Ex 3:2) and on Mount Sinia (Gal 3:19; Acts 7:53) as the Word or representative of Jehovah.

The point is that during the Jewish age, Jesus was the chief prince/messenger/angel speaking to Moses on behalf of Jehovah/ Yahweh, at the burning bush and on Mount Sinai.  If Michael is the chief prince of Israel, Michael must be Jesus, the chief prince.  Otherwise, would you conclude that Michael is higher ranking than Jesus?  If Michael was the chief prince and Jesus was not, than how is Jesus superior to Michael?  Therefore they must both be the same person.

 

SIGNS OF DANIEL 12 ALREADY FULFILLED!

Daniel 11 brings us up to the time of the end and Daniel 12 brings us 5 signs of the time of the end:

1) Increase in knowledge (i.e. technology, mobile phones, Internet, etc.)

2) Increase in travel (cars, planes, space travel)

3) “children of your people delivered” (Israel a nation)

4) Great time of trouble (world wars, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, Mao, Hitler, Stalin, etc. murder over 100 million non-combatants last century)

5) Book of Daniel unsealed and explained (If not Volume 3, “Thy Kingdom Come,” then how is that fulfilled?)

So if this does not prove that we have been in the time of the end and that Jesus (pictured here as Michael) has returned, then what does this all mean?

Once prophecy is fulfilled, it’s meaning becomes more evident.  For example, in Jesus day, people looking at Daniel 9 (70 weeks) thought that Messiah would defeat the Romans and set up the earthly kingdom at that time.  Once history played out, the purpose of the Messiah became clear to Jesus disciples.  In spite of the miraculous evidences, people rationalized what they knew, and then rejected Jesus. 

Based on Daniel 12:4, Sir Isaac Newton concluded that some day man would travel at 50 miles per hour.  Who would have imagined then, how much greater a fulfillment of prophecy would take place.  The miraculous evidences today are inescapable.  Perhaps the biggest underlying issue is the dramatic changes on planet earth in the past two centuries, particularly Israel restored, then the increase in knowledge & travel and for the first time in history, great trouble that impacts the whole world – not isolated geographically.  Clearly God somehow has a hand in all this.  Right?  How else are these changes coming about?  How then is it such a leap of faith to imagine that the invisible returned Jesus, God’s Chief Messenger in accomplishing this?

As is historically evident, this increase in knowledge spans every area, i.e. science, technology, medicine, agriculture, the Bible, etc.  Regarding the Bible, Daniel says that at the time of the end the Wise would Understand (Dan 12:9-12).  Daniel says this in regard to the 1290 and 1335 days and indicates the book of Daniel will be unsealed.  This was fulfilled in Volume 3 of Studies in the Scriptures, “They Kingdom Come.”  If we are wrong, would you then say that we cannot understand Daniel today and its meaning is yet to be revealed in the future?  On the other hand, if the book of Daniel is now unsealed, than Michael has already stood up. Right?  If now fulfilled how, how do you think it was?  Who explained the meaning of Daniels prophecies if not Brother Russell in volume 3 “Thy Kingdom Come”?

Most people make a mistake with end time prophecies, thinking that everything happens quickly, however most parables and historical prophecies play out over centuries, as in the prophecy of the destruction of Tyre, which was fulfilled in stages taking several centuries till all the prophetic declarations were fulfilled. Even the Apostles were thinking that Jesus might  be setting up his kingdom in their time until Jesus told them it was not for them to know when (Acts 1:6).  In Daniel 12 – When Michael Stands up in the time of the end: Knowledge increases.  One source claims the world’s knowledge is doubling every two years now – http://www.digitalstrategyconsulting.com/netimperative/news/2011/06/worlds_data_more_than_doubling.php 

 

NOW THAT YOU KNOW, WHAT SHOULD YOU DO?

Understanding the role of the Lord’s people at the time of Jesus second presence can best be learned by a careful study of the scriptures relating to this topic.  We recommend the link below as a good place to start.

http://www.friendsofjehovahswitnesses.com/2012/09/01/our-lords-great-prophecy-jesus-second-presence/

 

169 comments to Who is Michael the Archangel?

  • DB

    Thanks for the prompt reply Peter, that’s a lot to consider. I agree that Revelation isn’t the best book to use to prove definitively whether Jesus is Michael the Archangel as it is highly symbolic, resulting in different interpretations and can confuse the issue. Indeed, it’s a subject that is difficult to prove one way or the other, and I think anyone’s opinion can be equally valid, so I do respect your opinion. However, I like how you read the book in historical context, rather than simply applying all of the symbolism to “modern times”, as it’s important to understand what the book meant to people at that time. As a student of literature this is my favoured method too! I firmly believe that it’s important to share opinions, that way we can pool our resources and solve these issues.

    I’ll try to respond to each point you have made and better explain my position.

    1. Firstly, to me it’s clear that the Dragon does represent Satan, as the passage literally refers to the Dragon as being Satan in line 9. My reading of this passage is that the Dragon recruits a number of angels represented by the tail sweeping “a third of the stars out of the sky [flinging] them to the earth” with its seven heads representing governments under Satan’s rule as they extend from the dragons body. This represents Satan deceiving and recruiting a third of the angels in God’s heavenly court to his cause along with controlling earthly governments, which is then reflected and applied to the literal event then described with Michael casting out Satan and his angels.

    I find your interpretation related to the other images very interesting, and I’ll consider it carefully along with the link you have provided. If I’m honest, I haven’t looked too deeply into Revelation’s symbolism yet, so that will be very useful. I would guess that a lot of the prophecies and imagery in Revelation are often borrowed from older scriptures as you mention the prophecies in Daniel. In my opinion, the image of the dragon is borrowed from Daniel to allude to Satan and these events in heaven when reading this passage in context.

    2. I will have to disagree with you on this one! If Satan was cast down during the flood, how do you explain that Satan was still in heaven in (Job 1:6) and (Job 2:1)? From these passages it’s clear Satan is able to roam the earth and still return to heaven after the event of the great flood. If he was cast down in chains at this time, why is he free to return to heaven and report to God? Also, you allude to (2 Peter 2:4) and (Jude 6) where Satan is bound in chains and cast down to hell. Now, I know we’ll have different opinions of what “hell” is, but it’s clear to me that Satan is cast down to Hell/Sheol (not the lake of fire), rather than the earth as it is explicitly stated as such. If Satan is in darkness, then surely he can’t be on the earth but is instead beneath it in darkness?

    Also, I’m interested in knowing why you believe Satan was cast down during the great flood, what connections are there to show that this might be so? In 2 Peter, the writer is not making a direct connection between Satan being cast down and the great flood, but instead is talking about the final judgement and comparing this with previous judgements such as the great flood and Sodom and Gomorrah and Lot being saved for being a “righteous man.” If the writer mentioned Sodom and Gomorrah first in this passage instead of the great flood, would that mean Satan and his demons were cast down during this event instead? Personally I don’t see a direct connection between these events, the writer is merely using these past separate events to explain parallels of what will similarly happen in the coming judgement day.

    3. The final issue relates to the “Word of God/Logos” and what it actually is. In a number of passages in the Old Testament the Word is transmitted through angels to relate God’s message to humanity and the prophets, but also seemingly comes of itself (Ezekiel 21:1). I do understand why you think Jesus could be the Archangel as he is described as being the Word and angels transmit the Word. However, angels are merely messengers who transmit the Word, but I think that Jesus is the personification of the “literal” Word of God that comes from his mouth (Psalm 33:6) and (2 Peter 3:5). The relationship between the Father and the Son is mutual in that they glorify each other (John 13:31-32).

    This is further reflected throughout the Gospel of John, such as Jesus stating he can only do what the Father does (John 5:19) and does “nothing of himself” and can only do what the Father commands him to do. If Jesus is truly the Word that comes from God’s mouth, then this makes sense as anyone’s words/voice can merely reflect their mind, so Jesus perfectly reflects God’s mind and in this way is described as being the image of God the Father (2 Corinthians 4:4). If Jesus is a created angel, then that would mean he is used by God as a mere puppet to represent himself, yet angels are still autonomous beings. According to the first chapter of Genesis God created the universe using his voice, which would explain that Jesus preexisted as the Word of God, the tool used for creation rather than as an angel. Further, Jesus states that he is “in the Father” and that the “Father is in him” and that according to Jesus when we see Jesus we see the Father (John 14:8-14). Further, Jesus states that he is “in” the Apostles as the Word if they follow his commands (John 14:15-21). Jesus is “in” the Father as he is the literal Word of God that forms in God’s mind and is spoken through his mouth. If this is correct, then Jesus cannot be a created angel, as they are separate beings, but Jesus is equal to God (John 5:18) and inextricably connected to the Father (John 10:30) and is eternal with no beginning or end (Rev 1:8), which no angel could ever be as they are created.

    In Hebrews the first two chapters relate to the worship of angels, why it’s wrong and that Jesus is superior to the angels (Heb 1:4) and God states: “Let all God’s angels worship him” (Heb 1:6). Angels are expressly not to be worshipped (Rev 22:9), so if Jesus in an angel, then he should not be worshipped as in (Matt 14:33) (Luke 24:51-53) etc. Jesus is also supposed to be honoured in the same way the Father is honoured (John 5:23) which suggests to me that he is of the same nature of the Father, the manifestation of the Word from God’s mouth which he used to create the universe (Genesis 1) and (Colossians 1:13-16).

    Further, angels are sons of God but Jesus is unique as The Son of God, rather than being one of the sons of God. I consider the Son to be a metaphor representing God’s literal Word and the Father representing God in heaven. This would explain why the Word is God (John 1:1) as the words that come from anyone’s mouth must reflect their personal mind, therefore, logically, the Word that comes from God’s mouth must be God. This is further explained how the Word became flesh and lived among us (John 1:14) as the Word can become anything God wants it to be, hence the reference to the creation in Genesis and connection with “light” being the first thing God created. Jesus states that he is the “light of the world” (John 8:12), again suggesting that he is the Word and tool used by God for creation.

    There are a lot more passages I could use to reinforce this concept, but these are the ones I find most convincing that Jesus is not a created angel but is instead the divine and eternal personification of the “Word” that comes from God’s mouth. I do find the subject quite fascinating to say the least and would be interested to know how you view this. Apologies for the length of my reply, but it’s a complex subject, and one I enjoy exploring greatly. Thanks!

    • Peter K. (admin)

      DB – I am glad we can share opinions too. You make some very good points. I just have time now to respond to point 1. It has been a busy week. I hope to be able to discuss your other reasonable points soon.

      You said, “…to me it’s clear that the Dragon does represent Satan…” Actually I agree with you in the sense that Satan is the “god of this world” (2 Cor 4:4). As such, he is really the head of the four beasts of Daniels 7 (four beastly governments – Babylon, Medio-Persia, Greece and Rome). Each beast had one head except for the leopard with four heads (Grecian empire split into four parts) giving us a total of seven heads in Daniel 7 over which Satan has been the ruler.

      As Pagan Rome (the dragon) became challenged by the growth of the new religion called Christianity, Satan was not caught short. He absorbed (Rev 12:4) the newly born religion and, ultimately, as Paganism declined, and the civil became subject to the religious, Satan had something new with which to rule the world: The Holy Roman Empire.

      Stars represent light bearers, whether true or false. The twelve stars on the woman’s head were the twelve Apostles (Rev 12:1). The tail of this dragon is likely Constantine as he was the LAST emperor in Rome; he moved the Imperial capital to Constantinople setting up great changes in history. Constantine, now embracing Christianity, and being chief religious ruler of the empire, called the Council of Nicea which drew to it one third of all the bishops (stars; teachers) of heaven (the Christian religious rulership). It is almost at this point that Babylon is born. The bishops are “cast . . . to the earth” — they now become primarily embroiled in earthly power-grabs and political maneuvering. Their spirituality is lost. The dragon, wishing to use newly-born Babylon (the wheat-tare mixture) to strengthen Rome, is ready to devour (assimilate) this “new” religion for political reasons.

      • DB

        No problem Peter, that’s very insightful. The level of depth in Revelation is incredible. Definitely going to look at Revelation in more depth now. It’s interesting to compare different interpretations too, as they’re all very convincing! Don’t worry about being busy, I know what that’s like, looking forward to your responses to the other points when you’re able…

    • Peter K. (admin)

      DB

      Here is a response to point #2. I will get back to you on point #3 when I can. Thanks.

      Regarding point #2, on its face, the book of Job seems to indicate that Satan addressed God in heaven. However, there are other scriptures which seem to contradict this view (which we will soon consider). So, we ask, is there any other way to interpret Job so as to harmonize with the rest of the Bible. I will suggest three alternate possibilities.

      1. Job is speaking metaphorically of Satan being in God’s presence
      2. On this special day, Satan was permitted a temporary visit to heaven (like a king visiting from another kingdom).
      3. The Hebrew word “came” does not need to mean a geographical movement from earth to heaven.

      Let’s look at Job 2:1 more closely and consider option 3.

      Job 2:1 (NKJV) “Again there was a day when the sons of God came <0935> (8799) to present themselves before the LORD, and Satan came also among them to present himself before the LORD.”

      Now notice how the same word for “came” [Strong’s <0935> (8799)] is used in Job 6:8.

      Job 6:8 (NKJV) “Oh, that I might have <0935> (8799) my request, That God would grant me the thing that I long for!

      In Job 6:8 we have the word “have” for the same Hebrew word for “came” in Job 2:1. In this example Job is making a request to God without geographically going to heaven to be in God’s presence to speak.

      Granted, on the face, you are the winner here since Job on the surface appears to imply that Satan did address God in heaven. However , in an effort to harmonize the Bible as a whole, consider the other evidence below.

      When Peter speaks of hell, he is using the unusual word “tartarus” from Greek mythology. Cronus, the ruler of the Titans, with many of the other Titans were banished to Tartarus by Zeus. Zeus bound the Titans in chains and hurled them into Tartarus of the Underworld. This false mythology came out of the truth of Satan and the fallen angels who were banished from heaven by God.

      According to Clarks Commentary, “The ancient Greeks appear to have received, by tradition, an account of the punishment of the ‘fallen angels,’ and of bad men after death; and their poets did, in conformity I presume with that account, make Tartarus the place where the giants who rebelled against Jupiter, and the souls of the wicked, were confined. ‘Here,’ saith Hesiod, Theogon., lin. 720, 1, ‘the rebellious Titans were bound in penal chains.’”

      Although the context of Jude 6 is about judgement, that does not detract from the very specific example of the fallen angels being bound at the time of Noah’s flood.

      Jude 6 (NKJV) “And the angels who did not keep their proper domain [as spirit beings, but materialized into human like bodies - Gen 6:1-4], but left their own abode [in heaven], He has reserved in everlasting chains [restraints – they can no longer materialize] under darkness [Not permitted to exercise their powers in the light.] for the judgment of the great day;”

      Let’s assume for the sake of argument that you are correct and that Satan was not cast down at the time of the flood. At that time the other rebellious angels were bound in chains of darkness until the judgment day. So wouldn’t that mean that the fallen angels were punished, however their leader, Satan, escaped punishment? That is difficult for me to understand.

      Let’s look at one more thing. The book of Enoch is quoted in the Bible by Jude and probably the first 18 chapters or so of what we have today is authentic.

      In the Book of Enoch, Semjaza (Satan) is portrayed as the leader of a band of angels called the Watchers that are consumed with lust for mortal women and become Fallen Angels.

      And Semjâzâ,[Satan] who was their leader [leader of the fallen angels], said unto them: ‘I fear ye will not indeed agree to do this deed, and I alone shall have to pay the penalty of a great sin. And they all answered him and said: ‘Let us all swear an oath, and all bind ourselves by mutual imprecations not to abandon this plan but to do this thing.’ Then sware they all together and bound themselves by mutual imprecations upon it. (Enoch 6:3-5)

      A full listing of the leaders of the group can be found on the 1 Enoch page. Semjâzâ convinced several other Grigori to join him in fornicating with women. As a result, he and the other sinful Grigori begot giant offspring (in Genesis called Nephilim or ‘fallen ones’ in Hebrew) that dominated and feasted upon humans during the days of Enoch.

      Finally, the judgement of the associates [fallen angels] of Samyaza [Satan] is described.

      And the Lord said unto Michael: ‘Go, bind Semjâzâ (Satan) and his associates who have united themselves with women so as to have defiled themselves with them in all their uncleanness. And when their sons have slain one another, and they have seen the destruction of their beloved ones, bind them fast for seventy generations in the valleys of the earth, till the day of their judgement and of their consummation, till the judgement that is for ever and ever is consummated. In those days they shall be led off to the abyss of fire:〈and〉to the torment and the prison in which they shall be confined for ever. And whosoever shall be condemned and destroyed will from thenceforth be bound together with them to the end of all generations. (Enoch 10:11-14)

      After the destruction of the Giants, God caused the Great Flood (Noah’s flood) to wipe out the humans who had become corrupted.

    • Peter K. (admin)

      DM – Finally for point # 3. Your lines of evidence are quite involved, however to simplify matters, there are two basic positions you propose:

      a) You do not understand why I think that Jesus is Michael, the Chief Messenger of Jehovah and that Jesus cannot be called a “messenger” (angel).
      b) You believe that Jesus is the personification of the “literal” Word of God that comes from his mouth

      For now, let’s focus on concept “b.” I am confused about your view. If I understand correctly, your view is in some ways similar to the Trinity, however without the Holy Spirit being a third person of the one God. I get the impression that you do not see Jesus as an independent and separate individual, so you need to define your understanding more clearly. Or are you indirectly proposing the opposite, that Jesus, as a person, did not pre-exist and was first created in Mary’s womb???

      You said, “Jesus is “in” the Father as he is the literal Word of God that forms in God’s mind and is spoken through his mouth.” It seems to me that you are reading between the lines, so to speak, an interpretation into the text that is quite subjective. I am not aware of the Bible expressly stating what you are saying.

      You also said, “Jesus states that He is “in the Father” and that the “Father is in him” and that according to Jesus when we see Jesus we see the Father (John 14:8-14). Further, Jesus states that he is “in” the Apostles as the Word if they follow his commands (John 14:15-21).”

      This passage does not say that Jesus “is in the apostles as the Word” As a matter of fact, verse 24 says –

      Joh 14:24 (NKJV) “He who does not love Me does not keep My words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father’s who sent Me.”

      Here Jesus says that His words are not His, but rather the Fathers Words. (The same should be true of us)

      Hopefully, Jesus is in us and hopefully people see Jesus in us. However, even so, we are separate and distinct persons from Jesus. To be consistent, when we see the Father in Jesus and understand that the Father is in Him, Jesus likewise is a separate and distinct individual from the Father.

      Rather than bring out several more scriptures to prove what you are saying, it might be better if you clarify what you are saying, because I am confused as to what you have concluded. It is as if you are saying that Jesus is a part of Jehovah (the word’s Jehovah expresses) and that that Jehovah came to earth through this part of Him that we call the Word or Jesus. However, I am really not sure what you are saying. Please elaborate and clarify. Thanks.

  • DB

    Interesting discussion. If Jesus is Michael the Archangel then how do you explain: “[Jesus] replied, ‘I saw Satan fall like lightning from heaven.’” (Luke: 10:18) which connects with: “Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven. The great dragon was hurled down… was hurled to the earth and his angels with him.” (Rev: 12: 7-9). It is clear that Michael casts Satan down to the earth from heaven. If Jesus saw Satan cast from heaven whilst on the earth, then how can he be Michael the Archangel? Can Jesus be a man on the earth and at the same time be Michael the Archangel in heaven? Can Jesus be two separate beings at once whilst witnessing the same event on earth and heaven simultaneously?

    I’m curious how you can fit this with your belief that Jesus is Michael!

    • Peter K. (admin)

      DB – Excellent question. Now Revelation is a symbolic book. However, If we presume that:
      1) The dragon, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, in Revelation 12 is literally Satan.
      2) When Jesus said that he “saw Satan fall” he meant sometime during the time when he was a perfect man on earth, not during His pre-human existence.
      3) Michael the Archangel cast Satan and his angles down to earth at this time while Jesus was a man on earth.

      If all three of these statements are true, then you are correct. Jesus cannot be Michael the Archangel. Now in my opinion, none of these three statements are correct. However, that is just my opinion, and when it comes to Revelation especially, you are more than welcome to have a different opinion. Nevertheless, I will begin to explain why I draw a different conclusion and whether you agree or not, at least we can have an engaging discussion.

      First let’s ask the question that if in fact Satan and His angels were literally cast down to earth during Jesus lifetime, then practically speaking, what exactly does that mean? How were things different on earth once Satan and these fallen angels were cast down? Were there no demons and no demon possessions on earth until Jesus lifetime. There is certainly nothing in the Gospels that I can recall that indicates that this was a new thing.

      Let’s take a closer look at the three statements.

      1) Is the dragon, etc. literally Satan? Remember that there are four beasts in Daniel 7 representing four empires, the dragon representing Rome. Pagan Rome attempted to persecute and destroy Christianity, however, it was defeated by false Christianity and converted into Papal Rome.

      2 & 3) I think that when Jesus saw Satan fall like lightning (bright shining of the glory of Lucifer) was at the time of Jesus’ pre-human existence during the flood. This was when Satan and the fallen angels (demons) who had rebelled with Satan were cast down to earth in chains of darkness (2 Peter 2:4; Jude 6) trapped in earth’s atmosphere and restrained from materializing into a human like form as before the flood.

      So I believe that Jesus, as Michael, the archangel (chief messenger / Word of God / Logos) was assigned by Jehovah to bind Satan and the demons in chains or restraints at the time of Noah’s flood.

      In Revelation 12 the woman fleeing into the Wilderness is the true church fleeing from papal persecution (the counterfeit Michael) during the 1260 years (539=1799 A.D.) This was pictured in Elijah fleeing from Jezebel into the wilderness. The manchild is the corrupting influences of antichrist growing among the true church, which turns into Michael, the counterfeit of Jesus or the Papal authority. This counterfeit concept is found in 2 Thess.

      2 Thess 2:3-7 (NKJV) 3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; [the counterfeit Michael / the Papacy] 4 Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 7 For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: [manchild growing] only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way [Dragan/Civil Rome in the way] You can find a more detailed description of Revelation 12 here:

      Picture of the Counterfeit Kingdom of God – Rev 12

      Usually when I talk about Michael, I leave this part out as Revelation is difficult for most to follow.

      Now if you disagree with these conclusion, I still think it is worth considering that Revelation is a highly symbolic book and it might not be the best approach to let Revelation decide for us who Michael the Archangel is. Just my thoughts.

    • Jacqueline

      Begotten to me means a familial relationship. That Jesus was somehow born from the body of God as the form of the word or mouth of God. Sort of like the Holy Spirit can be thought of as the finger of God but can also move people thoughts etc. Angels are not in my understanding begotten as the material might not be the same as God himself, but Jesus is of his material. I think that God can beget some part of himself as just an eye ( I recognize that Holy Spirit is like that.)
      I believe he is the Angel of the Abyss because angel is also a descriptive term and he came to break up the works of the devil (Jesus).
      I believe the problem is with Jesus and Satan as no one challenges God in the spirit realm, they have seen him and know better. But as one can grieve the Spirit which we know is of God or from him. Jesus is of his direct body like a baby comes from a mommy’s body. Some animals impregnate themselves in nature not needing 2 (sponge, sea stars). Other creatures like generic angels including Satan, I believe are not directly from the body of God like Jesus.
      I think Jesus as a God personifies God exactly undistinquishable from him but as a man divested of his Godship because his father can do this separation and we might not understand this process as we once didn’t understand how to split the atom. This conversation has mentioned for the first time something akin to the way I see Jesus.
      Daniel 12 as the Word of God but in a different capacity he does what he was sent to earth to do deliver God’s people and he yet has another name. Michael, but I also believe he is the same Michael of Revelation. Just my reasoning of the overall knowledge about this fascinating bond of God the Father and his SON.

      PS:I just wanted to add something that I notice about Jesus he calls him Father, just like us. I have never addressed my mom or dad by their formal name when speaking to them or about them even tho they are dead. I never knew their real name until about 5 when kindergarten required.
      So This is truly a Father and Son here and the Son wears many hats as a fireman sometimes is a parmedic but one I know is a master DJ. Observing him in either capacity would not look as if he is in the other. Except that he looks the same. I know the heavenly scenario is on a higher plane but I learn better if I keep it in simple analogy.
      Didn’t mean to butt in here but Jesus is just my newly found Lord. I never really knew him.

      • DB

        Thanks for sharing your thoughts Jacqueline. Yes, we seem to have a similar understanding of what the Word is. The Word comes directly from God, so in that sense it is born from God. Also, with Jesus calling God his “Father” I agree that this is a high degree of respect as we pay our own parents. For me, I don’t think we should call God “Jehovah” as that would be disrespectful. The other thing I’d say is that I don’t think Jesus is “a god” but is the image of The God, and I don’t think he can be Michael in this context, though I do recognise the Word can be anything God wants it to be.

        Therefore, I’d say it is right to say he is God personified but in an indirect way. He isn’t literally God in the sense some people think. The Father and Son analogy operates on a number of levels: literal, as in he’s the literal Son of God; metaphorical as in the Father represents God and the Son represents his Word; spiritual in the sense that their relationship is unique and special that they are connected. It’s a paradox that they are both one and separate at the same time, which makes it difficult to understand.

        • Jacqueline

          DB, I agree that he is definitely not GOD. In fact Jehovah is so great that even Satan fights Jesus and not God. The demons asked had he come to destroy them before their appointed time. And I have just recently come to recognize that we are dealing with Jesus (Matt. 28:19,20). He has all authority and this is good for us, because before him, Jehovah will act if you disobey but now Jesus covers our sins. (Flood and Sodom & Israel are ex.)When he brings things back to the perfect Adam state then Jehovah once again deals with us just as he did with his son Adam in Eden (Gen 3:8-10). Sometimes I am not sure of myself when deep conversations occur but I seem to be able understand the Bible so clearly sometimes. I feel it is Holy Spirit helping me but it seems so unreal that I understand more of how he fits into the divine plan of God. Jehovah has really given us a gift, one that covers and forgives our sins. As a witness we were made to feel that we couldn’t really please God so we were working to try. At least they told the truth! We need to go thru Jesus to get the peace of God that excels all thought.
          That’s why so many witnesses get depressed (well one reason)they don’t really have a hope, just a maybe. Zephaniah 2:2,3 is presented to us like you probably aren’t if you don’t get in the ark of salvation. And the ark represents Jesus not being in an “organization”.

          PS: Also forgive me when I write so much but I try to write for the thoughts I know are in persons reading on this site. The responses back not only answers but it gives them hope. And that is what this site is about. We have over 5,000 on this site each month, but they read but won’t comment, typical of persons that have so much to lose if found out.

          • Anonymous

            No problem Jacqueline. It’s difficult to put such complex ideas and concepts into words. It takes time to gradually understand these things and consequently we need to work together to sort things out. By sharing our opinions, I think we can help each other to get over all these difficulties as we clarify what the Bible is all about. It’s perfectly normal to have doubts, and to feel unsure of ourselves, but we can build up our confidence in what we learn through sharing. The more knowledge and understanding we gain, the closer we get to each other and consequently God. It’s not about dividing people and separating them through Elitist attitudes. Instead Jesus transcended the boundaries, and that to me is the most important aspect of his message.

            • Jacqueline

              So you understand why I think and hesitate before being dogmatic now. I was fooled once about Jesus and that has brought me to my knees so to speak. I believe that Jehovah is Almighty and the only GOD. I believe that Jesus is his son like we have fathers and sons on earth and that he is a God but not Jehovah. I however believe that he was born from GOD not created like Adam. Adam was created by God but Cain, Abel and Seth were born of Adam and out of Eve. This in my opinion makes Jesus different from the Angels in this respect but a messenger and word of God. He speaks exactly what his dad means and thinks just like him. This allows me to worship Jesus but not an angel as they are not spoken of as Gods also. For me the scriptures teach that there are different divisions of angels Seraphs, etc. I now hold Jesus in a position next to Jehovah instead of third from Jehovah, leaving the governing body completely out. Otherwise I look at each scripture where Michael is used and make my decision as to who this is. If it is Jesus in one I reason it should be Jesus in the other instance also.

              • DB

                It’s much healthier to have an open mind and accept that we may be wrong, rather than hold onto incorrect beliefs that could be damaging to ourselves. Nobody needs a self-appointed religious organisation to tell them what to think and believe.

                Overall, I agree with your views on Jesus, though I think he is God personified as the Word. He is a reflection of the Father, and mirrors everything God says and does. For example, if you look in the mirror you will see yourself reflected back at you, and it will copy your movements exactly. This image is still you and is not another individual, so in my opinion Jesus is technically God. For me, it’s a paradox, part of the “mystery”, something that cannot be fully explained or understood, and as the “Word’” Jesus is both God and man in one – both one and separate at the same time. If you’re interested you could read some writings from the early Church Fathers such as St. Ignatius and Clement of Rome etc. They help clear up a lot of things that people are arguing about to this day!

                • Jacqueline

                  Hello DB, I actually have and have read the entire book with some of the early church father’s view. But let me explain the best I can. Within the Bible Students I can discuss this with you without being afraid of DF or some put down so here we go.
                  I believe Satan will only go so far with Jehovah himself. I reason that the apostasy that was already at work before the apostles died was against Jesus as being in the flesh and a distinct person. I reason that the early church fathers were playing into the hands of Satan who really hates Jesus and the role he has in God’s plan and as his only son born directly of him. If Satan can wipe out Jesus even if it makes him “The GOD” that’s okay. He HATES JESUS, the son. We tend to forget to identify what the issues are here. Jesus (for a minute go along with me here) said in Prov 8 that he was especially fond of the sons of the earth. Satan does not like Jesus so to get us to merge him with GOD and dumb him down is still accomplishing his purpose.
                  Some people say the opposite of God is Satan. I feel the opposite of Satan is Jesus. So I understand that the Early Church Fathers was a part of the great Apostasy or falling away from Jesus teachings and that he came in the flesh and is the SON of the Jehovah. I keep saying I because for once in my life I have asked GOD for his spirit to let me think for once before I die.
                  We have seen Jehovah at work with the flood, Sodom and his works with the Jews. Satan isn’t really stupid, he understands that it is him against the son of God and not Jehovah. And he is slick, he tries to erase him as an individual and divide and conquer even with the ones he saved.
                  I DON’T THINK YOU CAN KILL JEHOVAH. Now Jesus also can’t be killed, he has life within himself, IMMORTALITY. I’ll stop now for your reply.
                  (Please remember I am not being dogmatic but thinking and reasoning this thing out with what I see in the bible)

                • Peter K. (admin)

                  DB – Thanks for continuing the discussion. Like Sister Jacqueline said, “I am not being dogmatic.” So, even if we do have a different point of view, we are not tyring to push it on you. Rather, we want to share why we are thinking differently.

                  I do not place much weight on the philosophies of the early fathers. The historical evidence seems pretty clear that after the Apostles death that a variety of different ideas arose among different leaders, largely driven by the Greek philosophies and Gnosticism. The last Apostle, John, could see the antichrist influence developing before he died.

                  1 John 2:18 (NASV) “Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have appeared; from this we know that it is the last hour.”

                  2 John 1:7 (NASV) “For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist.”

                  This idea of Jesus coming in the flesh is so important.

                  1 Timothy 2:4-6 (NKJV) – “4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time,”

                  “Ransom” comes from the Greek word “anti-lutron” meaning “corresponding price.” Yes, Jesus was an exact correspond Ransom price for Adam. A perfect human life (Jesus) for a perfect human life (Adam). Nothing more, nothing less. Moses’ Law Covenant was built on the same premise, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a LIFE for a LIFE” (Deut 19:21). Hence, as I understand it, if Jesus were both God and man in one, then he could not have been the Ransom price, as he would have been more than a man and not an exact equivalent. You may find this helpful in illustrating the idea. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC4hzC93yb4

                  There is a lot more detail to discuss, however I am trying to keep the discussion simple and high level for all to follow. Again, we are not being dogmatic; however we appreciate the opportunity to share honest thoughts with each other.

                • Jacqueline

                  DB, I felt I needed to show scripturally why I said it is between Jesus and Satan. Hebrews 2 chapter is sort of why.
                  Vs 8 “putting everything in subjection under his feet”, he left nothing out of his control (RSV) It seems to me Jesus gets something he never had before but Jehovah always had this.
                  Vs. 14″Since therefore the children share in flesh and blood, he himself likewise partook of the same nature, that through death he might destroy him who has the power of death, that is the devil.” Jesus seems to be Satan’s problem now.
                  Vs 18″For because he himself has suffered and been tempted he is able to help those who are tempted.” The devil can’t temp God.
                  Jas.1:13 says”When under trial, let no one say: “I am being tried by God.” For with evil things God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone. Satan is almost pure evil and he can’t temp God. God has shown through Israel as his witnesses that he will not accept it.
                  But for Jesus to accept such a temptation from satan, if he is also God then somewhere there is error on the part of the scriptures. I say scriptures rather than God in error because I too fear God to even suggest he says contradictions.
                  I just felt I needed to scripturally qualify my thoughts. Thank you

                  • DB

                    Hi Jacqueline and Peter. Don’t worry, I know you’re not being dogmatic and neither am I (at least, I hope I’m not!) Thank you very much for sharing your views, I really do appreciate it. And it helps me to understand your perspective.

                    Now, I’m interested to know what you think about both God and Jesus being our saviour. According to God, there is no saviour but himself in (Hosea: 13:4) and also in (Isaiah: 45:21) along with other passages. If God is our only saviour, who is Jesus? Surely we can’t have two saviours? Why does Jesus refer to himself as “I AM” in (John: 8:58) which is one of God’s names (Exo: 3:14)? Jesus also says he and the Father are one (John: 10:30). In these instances the Jews want to stone Jesus for “claiming to be God”. If he wasn’t claiming to be God In these passages, why do the Jews want to stone him?

                    Yes, Satan cannot tempt God, but surely he can try to tempt him all the same? Jesus did not accept Satan’s temptations in the wilderness. Just because Satan tempted him doesn’t mean he accepted these temptations as he resisted them. I don’t see a contradiction here myself.

                    The Church Fathers were threatened by philosophies such as Gnosticism as you say, but they themselves didn’t practice Gnosticism itself. If they were part of a great apostasy as you say, then there has been no such thing as Christianity to this day. If it wasn’t for the churches through the centuries, we wouldn’t have Christianity. Some of the Church Fathers such as Ignatius were taught by the Apostle John himself. Personally I don’t think it would be a good reflection on John’s teaching skills if the people he taught fell away so quickly.

                    My understanding about the ransom is that only God can forgive the multitude of sins for all mankind. By sacrificing himself, Jesus took on all the sins of the world, not just Adam, something that a mere man would not be able to do. That’s just my opinion though, and something I clearly need to think more about!

                    I think the reason why there’s so much confusion is that it’s impossible to decide on what “true” Christianity is. There are so many differing viewpoints dating back – as you say – to the 1st century that it can be extremely difficult to define it. Personally, I think as long as we can stick to the basic teachings of Christ eg. “Love your neighbour as yourself” etc, then everything else is secondary. For me, Christ taught universal truths that we can all stick to, regardless of all the specific details that we are taught to believe by various groups. The teachings of Christ transcend these issues and appeal to everyone’s basic humanity, regardless of doctrines.

                    Thanks for sharing your thoughts so far, glad you can do this without living in fear. Also, please bear in mind that my views aren’t set in stone, so I’m always happy to hear from others so I can understand better. Thanks for clarifying these things for me. Also, I will reply to our previous discussions Peter when I have time!

                    • Peter K. (admin)

                      DB,

                      Let’s take a look one point at a time.

                      GOD THE ONLY SAVIOR

                      Yes, God is called the “only Savior” (Hosea 13:4; Isaiah 45:21) in the Bible, however He has often used agents to accomplish the act of saving. These agents too are part of the Savior team so to speak.

                      The Hebrew word for “Savior in these two verses is Strong’s 03467 עשׁי yasha‘ yaw-shah.’ We find other people in the Bible also called by this Hebrew word Savior.

                      Moses (Exodus 2:17
                      Joshua (Joshua 10:6)
                      The Judges (Judges 2:18)
                      David (1 Samuel 23:2, 5)

                      So God is the author or director of Salvation. He can choose to accomplish salvation through agents. The chief agent through whom he accomplishes salvation is Jesus.

                      JESUS THE GREAT I AM?

                      The words “I am” in John 8:58 are the common words used for I am, not a title for God and the words I am can apply to anyone. For example, Luke 1:18 says “Zacharias said to the angel, “How shall I know this? For I <1473> am <1510> (5748) an old man…”

                      These Greek words are very different from the Greek Septuagint words for Exodus 3:14.

                      So really I am sorry to say DM that there is no substance at all to the “I AM” argument.

                      “I AND THE FATHER ARE ONE” John 10:30

                      John 10:30 (NKJV) “that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us…”

                      You just can’t make an argument that Jesus is God without arguing that Jesus’ disciples are God too. It is just not what Jesus meant. He is speaking about a oneness in will and purpose that we should all share with God based in our understanding of His mind as taught in the Bible and revealed to us through his holy spirit.

                      GOD CANNOT BE TEMPTED – James 1:13

                      God does not need to resist temptation because he cannot be tempted. Jesus could be tempted and did need to resist temptation.

                      Hebrews 4:15 (NASV) “For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin.”

                      RANSOM – WHO DID JESUS DIE FOR

                      You said, “By sacrificing himself, Jesus took on all the sins of the world, not just Adam.” The Bible says that Jesus saves the world, not that he takes on the world’s sins. Where does it say he takes on the world’s sins?

                      Romans 5:12 (NKJV) “Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned—“

                      Okay – so Adam was the source of sin for the human race.

                      Romans 5:18 (NKJV) “Therefore, as through one man’s offense judgment came to all men, resulting in condemnation, even so through one Man’s righteous act the free gift came to all men, resulting in justification of life.”

                      So by Jesus dying as Adam’s substitute, the sin Adam passed on to his descendants can be removed.

                      The Greek “anti-lutron”, anti-lutron means an exact corresponding price of equal value. That means Jesus perfect human life substituted for Adam’s perfect human life which he had forfeit.

                      Let me encourage you again to watch this 7 minute video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC4hzC93yb4

                      Thanks for having the courage to share your views.

  • Keepha

    @ Peter and others….Peter its your site so I respect that you have the right to control content flow, but for those who are seeking to express themselves on the matter of Christology, they may link up to my forum here:
    http://apologetics.freeforums.net/

    • Peter K. (admin)

      Keepha – Thanks for providing the forum link. For those who want a deeper and more intense discussion on Christology, it’s good to know that is available.

    • Jacqueline

      Keepha, I was at a funeral that started at 3pm and by the time we got thru eating it was 7pm. So been away from the site all day. So, now I understand. Some sites have no articles etc stating their beliefs or thoughts. It is strictly a blogger site, just what you want to talk about but you must stay on subject. If there is no talk they bring old blogs back up and post until someone comes on to talk. JWN is like that.
      Our site has subjects directed to a specific audience unlike most Bible Student sites. It’s target market are Jehovah Witnesses. They don’t believe in the trinity, hellfire, they believe in the pre human existence of Christ, the 144,000 as the bride etc. Persons that don’t believe in this would be uncomfortable as we will defend these beliefs with scripture. We won’t waver but will listen to other viewpoints. We have the beliefs already on the site. So this is where you and this site were on different pages. We discuss doctrine that we have in common or about the witnesses and Bible Students. We don’t encourage witnesses to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We don’t go back to the elementary doctrines that we have different from most religions. Glad we could get this understanding. We present information as Br. Peter explained in his comment.
      There are facebook pages that discuss Bible translations only and use Greek and Hebrew language. They are strict and will not discuss doctrine however as they are witnesses and non witnesses. If you want one of these I think you would be at home as they really discuss the original language.

      “Bible translations compared” Ask to be a part of this if you like. It is all about the Greek and Hebrew words used. https://www.facebook.com/groups/Bibletranslationscompared.1/668871743145322/?comment_id=726527504046412&notif_t=group_comment_reply

      This might be a great group also: Jehovah’s Witnesses And Biblical Discussion Group
      https://www.facebook.com/groups/101035896681065/

  • Keepha

    @Peter K &Jacqueline I am encouraged to be “Be humble before every man” I never said I knew it all, and never presented myself this way. I am alarmed at how sensitive the Bible students are when you present that they may be misrepresenting the scriptures. For instance Peter you rave about Rotherham’s translation, but Joseph Bryant Rotherham was a bible scholar, who produced the Bible translation that Bible students use. I would humbly ask what’s the difference in using Scholarly information whether translation work or commentaries when both are derived from the same source? I see here a double standard which is not fair(Proverbs 11:1)I see its okay to make comments about the imperfections of the GB

    but when someone mentions all the doctrinal changes and prophetic speculation end times, such as:1829,1844,1874,1914,1925,1975 which never came?
    the recipients of this news get very sensitive. Russell, Rutherford and the GB both are culpable of these failed prophecies. I myself will not get involved in creature worship, for glory belongs to God alone. I have a right to test the spirit and prove all things from scripture and if I am doing this in a respectful tone( which I am) then I should not be silenced or condemned.

    You need to understand that when you talk about the JW’s its hurts people, but you expect them to get over it and change and in cases try to win them over to the Bible student movement. However, the flip side of this coin is that when someone bring up an INADEQUACY about the Bible students then the hurt feelings that you process leads to silencing the individual who are speaking truth. I tell you these things because I love you, its time to stop misleading those who are really searching for truth. Stop pushing people back into the 1800′s and let them search the scripture apart from Russell and the Studies in the Scriptures Book. You probably need to ask yourself is your BS movement any different than the JW movement when both prefer tradition over truth? I pray that you will hear with a sound mind and heart.

    Peace, love and blessings

    Keepha

    • Jacqueline

      Keepha hello, my purpose is not too shut you down. N.T. Wright p71 appears to be a Trinitarian and gives his opinion. R. Martin might just disagree with Robert Wilson, David Hays may or may not be a Trinitarian.
      When I read what you are posting it seems some are copy and paste as they seem to contradict each other about the reason the different scriptures are saying why God or Jesus was or wasn’t really involved. These are men and you need to read their entire book and know what they represent to present them as authority, because they are pushing their religious beliefs.
      Reference books are a little different mostly, they give definition etc of words and Greek meaning and Hebrew meaning. You also asked one man what books would be good for a JW or BS to use to study. Most of those books mentioned are in my library, many serious students of the bible have such works. Now if Keepha, has found these books to be best then I can talk to Keepha but not the man you consulted. Summaries however, of some of the works in your words, can come across as from your heart and understanding, not the different Trinitarians that can’t possibly admit that Jesus is capable of doing anything in a prehumen existence. They are locked in by their beliefs.
      I often put links to persons pages for information so a person can see what is out there. I don’t quote the writer of that site because I can’t vouch for him just what he has scanned(ex. news article, watchtower quotes).
      I am trying to talk to Keepha with the bible. Personally I have over 16 translations in non electronic form right on my table. I read other works but not as fact but what they are seeing. To harmonize or say why are we seeing different, but not as authority.
      I have “Faith” that God has allowed these different translation for us to compare and come to the conclusions of what he has planned for mankind.
      2Th 3:1-2 ” Finally, brothers and sisters,[a] pray for us, so that the word of the Lord may spread rapidly and be glorified everywhere, just as it is among you, and that we may be rescued from wicked and evil people; for not all have faith.
      I can’t quote anyone for this faith that I have, that a large or majority of persons with a bible all over the world don’t have all these works as a resource. So when I comment, I am speaking to encourage those not to worry, it is not that hard. That they can read, supplicate and pray that God help you to understand and they will be okay.
      THIS IS NOT TO SHUT YOU DOWN, Keepha it is to give another side to this coin. Others are reading and they may just have “Faith” in the different translations and may read also but if separated from these works all is not lost. They can drop to their knees. These men are scholars and still come up with wrong views on the trinity and paradise, the resurrection and hellfire. So how can I believe them as authority when they write a book? Their opinions are okay in discussion however but not as authority.
      PS: Aid book, Insight books are good also. They encompass some of the many reference books in a finite form. All books have some flaws, nothing is perfect.

      Now regards the Governing Body. That is a system just like the Papal system, democratic, communistic, totalitarian system. Not the individuals. You mention JW are hurt when we examine the governingbody, why? If they come on and show by scripture that this and the Papal system are ordained by God we will accept them. Why, even the governingbody has not done that yet. And that is the problem, people getting upset when you examine men. The Bible (God) for me is to be found true and me or any man contrary to it is to be found a lie. You are bringing in a lot of subjects, I might have missed replying to one or two.
      Keepha if you want to win, you have, because it is what you have proven for yourself, but we don’t have to accept it. We move on with no harm or foul as we talk to so many on the site and on the back end of the site. It is not a battle here just presentation of info, if you don’t agree state your case and be convinced in your heart. There is more in the bible to consider also. Take Care dear Keepha, in love Jacqueline

    • Peter K. (admin)

      Keepha – I am not hurt or upset by what you are saying.  Sr. Jacqueline and I love you brother. We have not blocked one of your comments.  

      As this website’s administrator I want to keep balance and a two way discussion going. When there are too many posts by one person on one topic at one time, it is time to slow down and give others a chance to digest what you are saying and decide whether or not to respond.  If they repond, you can have an honest two way discusion giving careful consideration to the merits or lack thereof.  However, when people stop responding and you have gotten the last word, it may be time to move on to a different  topic.  Otherwise people will feel pushed.

      If you were a website administrator, where would you draw a line on your website?  For example, would you allow a trinitarian to comment?  Would you place any limits on how much they could post?

      We are not trying to win most JWs over to being Bible Students.  Our focus on consecration to the heavenly call, the narrow way, spirit begettal and the development of the fruits of the spirit are foreign to the earthly hopes and thinking of most JWs.  We try to provide helpful resources and information and allow liberty for different thoughts.  Yes we do defend our point of view, however we accept your Christian liberty to disagree with us and we still count you as a brother in Christ.  Just because we may debate with you doesn’t mean we do not love and respect you.
       
      Keepha – you said, “but when someone mentions all the doctrinal changes and prophetic speculation end times, such  as:1829,1844,1874,1914,1925,1975 which never came?  the recipients of this news get very sensitive.”

      You are sincere but factually mistaken.  Please don’t lump in Russell and the Bible Students with Rutherford and the JWs. 

      1) Russel and the Bible Student did NOT change there doctrinal beliefs.

      2)  Bible Students did not predict 1925 and 1975.  Nor have the Bible Students as a group predicted any future dates since 1914.

      3)  Russell never predicted 1829, 1844 and 1874 as future dates.  And don’t forget 1799 1846 and 1878.  Russell made applications of these various prophecies as fulfilled in the past, not as future predictions.  He agreed with the Reformers on a day for a year in Daniel’s prophecies and that the Papal system was the antichrist.  Based on that, Russell believed that the reign of the Papacy began in 539 AD when Emperor Justinian granted the Roman Pope civil power and ended 1260 years later in 1799 AD when Napoleon brought the Pope to France as a prisoner where he died.  Now you can argue that Russell made false applications of these prophecies (which I would be willing to debate), however it is factually wrong to say that these were future false predictions.

      4)  1914 was the only future date Russell predicted.  As with the 70 weeks prophecy, it came to pass, however, there were over expectations (I.e. Romans not defeated and kingdom not set up.)  Prophecy becomes more clear after it is fullfilled.  To outright say that 1914 was a false prediction is to ignore that it is arguably the most significant date in modern history.  To not be long winded, I won’t repeat all I have said in the past about 1914.

  • Keepha

    @Jacqueline

    {you wrote}Not meaning to jump in here, don’t know Hebrew or greek but Gen 1:26 (NRSV)” Then God said, ” Let US make humankind in OUR image, according to OUR likeness;……….Vs 27 “So God created humankind in his image.”{ reply}When looking at Genesis 1 in the Hebrew text I noticed a couple of things. 27 times the Hebrew noun Elohim is used in Genesis Chapter 1 and in every instance Elohim(God) is in the plural. If we were to read this text literally it would read ” In the beginning Gods created the heavens and the earth” but we know this reading would be improper, but why? because the Septuagint translators(LXX) used the singular noun Theos in use for Elohim. The reason why is that Elohim{although plural) is what Hebrew thought calls the majestic plural. So it refer to just one person; Elohim denotes the strength he used in creating the Heavens and Earth. So when we get to Genesis 1:26 the ” US” is simply the majestic plural called in Hebrew the “Royal We” Ancient Kings in the East often referred to themselves ” LET US” and in fact internal in the scriptures we have evidence of David and the Persian Kings referring to themselves in the plural ” Royal We”. Non- Trinitarians translation recognize this, for instance one translation reads in Gen 1:26: Then Yahweh said: I will make man in My image according to my likeness…-BOY…and we read Vs 27 its says : IN HIS OWN IMAGE. Here the Hebrew text contains the mas sing. HU{=HE}, which is a personal pronoun. Paul quotes Genesis 1:26 in 1 Cor 11:7 and Col 3:10 and never mentions Jesus, but attributes it the Father. If we cross reference Genesis and go to Job 38 it does says the Malakim(angels) were present, but notice what the Hebrew text says NAS Job 38:4 “Where were you when I[singular] laid the foundation of the earth? Tell Me, if you have understanding, Yahweh uses a personal pronoun “I” to express his action, next in Vs 7 of Job 38:7 the Angels are mentioned only in praising and be joyful in Yahweh creative works and it does not say that they created anything. In fact BARA(create) only refers to Yahweh alone in the Hebrew text. I have many Jewish sources to back me up on this exegesis of Genesis.

     
    {you wrote}My actual home (and 3 more in a row) was built it is said by Mr. Barnum, a contractor, now deceased. The reality is he was Barnum and Son, His son was as much involved as his father especially the electric components and the certain style of building in sand. But his dad is always credited with building these basement brick homes.
    So it is easy for humans to understand this seeming contradiction between these verses, because we see it everyday in normal life. We would understand that they were a team and other scriptures posted by Br. Peter earlier indicates that the son was given great latitude.
    Keep in mind. I don’t know Hebrew or Greek, this is just what a normal reader of the bible might conclude, the plowboy, for instance that Martin Luther spoke of..”{ reply} I agree about the credit to Yahweh alone. In order for me to believe the Mashiyach(Messiah) was the Shaliach(sent agent) I would need to see that in the Hebrew text ; The only Shaliach(agent) used in the Genesis creation account is in Genesis 3:23 in reference to Adam. Jesus is not mentioned as a agent until his Baptism in the Book of John and Acts 3:15. Remember Jesus is called the SECOND Adam for a reason and if he antedates Adam this expression aforementioned would be incongruous. Again Jesus never said he created in Genesis, but with proper Jewish hermeneutics quoted the Torah verbatim and said his Father did.(John 15:15) . . .because all the things I have heard from my Father I have made known to YOU. So in rebuttal to Peter argument’s, Jesus made known to his disciples the Torah and would not have hide such a important topic. The Greek neuter in Luke 1:35 blocks pre-existence.

     And we can’t forget the Spirit that God used to move to and forth also. This same helper can cause the simple man, woman or child even to understand the bible as well as a scholar. For an excellent Study of how I understand the working of the Spirit you many want to check this book out{http://www.amazon.com/To-Be-Continued-Miraculous-Gifts/dp/1879737582}

    with Peace and Blessings

    Keepha

  • Keepha

    Greetings Peter.

    {you wrote}the Logos or Jesus as the agent Yahweh/Jehovah used to frame the worlds{reply)

    {reply} Peter, ACCORDING TO HEBREW SCRIPTURE WRITERS “And God(singular) proceeded to make the expanse, the two great luminaries, the great sea monsters, the wild beast…” etc… “And God(singular) proceeded to create the man” (Gen. 1:7, 16, 21, 25, 27).

    “Yahweh(singular) the Creator of the heavens … the Former of the earth and the Maker of it” (Isa. 45:18).

    “God…has been resting from all his work that God(singular) has created” (Gen. 2:3).

    “Stretching out the heavens by himself(singular) ” (Job 9:8).

    “Yahweh, he(singular) has made the very heavens” (Ps. 96:5).

    “He(singular) is the Maker of the earth” (Jer. 10:12).

    (Neh. 9:6).”You are Yahweh alone(singular). You yourself(singular) have made the heavens”

    (Prov. 8:26-29). When as yet he(singular) had not made the earth…
    When he(singular) prepared (“established”) the heavens. When he(singular) decreed (“inscribed”) a circle on the face of the watery deep. He(singular) made firm the cloud masses. He(singular) decreed (“marked out”) the foundations of the earth”.

    All these inspired writers attest to the fact that God used no personal agent for creating the universe or for preparing the earth or for making the first humans. [ I have provided you with 12 scriptures here to validate my point that Yahweh ALONE created. You may want to check the Hebrew Dictionaries and Dead Sea Scrolls to confirm this belief.

    {you wrote}Hebrews 11:3{reply} Hebrew 11:3 is not talking about the Messiah in this verse{fact} The Hebrew writer is quoting from Psalm 33:6. Even the Watchtower NEVER uses this verse in reference to Jesus, nor the commentaries, nor the Jewish sources. I humbly propose here that you are misinterpreting the verse here.

    {you wrote}I was concerned that you said Acts 13:33 and Heb 5:5 did not have the same word or tense for "begotten." {reply} I said it was not spelled the same, and Strong's is the worst Concordance that you could have, it was made by Trinitarians and Scholars know its corrupt. Check any Greek Diaglott or Lexicon and you will see what I am saying, now concerning Acts 13:33 is a text often abused to suppress the clear application of Psalm 2:7, "You are My Son; today I have become your Father," to the beginning of the existence of the Son.

    Paul did not describe the resurrection in Acts 13:33. The KJV wrongly adds the word "again" to the Greek text. This misleads the reader into thinking that Jesus became the Son of God only at his resurrection. You must deal with the Greek verbs that Matthew and Luke use in there writings that show Messiah only came into existence at birth....ITS CALLED THE BIRTH OF MESSIAH, NOT THE INCARNATION OF MESSIAH WHICH APPEARS NOWHERE IN THE SCRIPTURES. I humbly ask again, why you are using Trinitarian bibles when we both are in agreement that the Trinity is a pagan concept?

    Yahweh is against Angelic being incarnating. which the scriptures back me up on this is in (Gen 6:4;1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:4) Even Russell acknowledges that on page 52 of his book Study on Scriptures that Messiah must be flesh, must be a man or he could not redeem man. This I believe is truth, and the fact believe in Jesus was an Angel calls into question our "Ransom for all" .1 John 4:2 This is the test for recognizing the spirit of God: every spiritual statement confessing the [particular] Jesus Christ who came as a human, is from God. Jesus is human, an anthropos, a man, not an Angel Yes, he was Son of God in power at the resurrection. Agreed, but Son of God from his genesis./ tell me who was begotten in Mary. Beget is to cause to come into existence. It is impossible to come into existence if you already exist! In Col 1:15-16 prototokos is firstborn as preeminent. The gennao word is not there. You are not reading the modern commentary! See Metzger. Peter Luke says “begotten in her” not through her! v. 20. And to what event does I John 5:18 refer? This just means brought into existence in her. Not so hard. Matthew and Luke as many liberal commentators admit have not a hint of Incarnation anywhere! The whole incarnation/pre-existence thing is a pagan concept.

    So you think Jesus was the Son of God in Genesis and throughout the OT.
    Did he say anything in the OT? You must also explain the future tense in Hebrew in 2 Samuel 7:14 regarding Messiah.

    Concerning Scholars I had already posted my feelings about that, but will for the sake of clarity repost:
    Some students have the view that they can entirely understand the Scriptures without reference to any scholarly works or perhaps only to one or two, such as Strong’s concordance. This approach has often led to the formation of cults because insufficient up-to-date information has been applied to the studies of the Scriptures. For example, with limited information some individuals or organizations have placed their followers under tithing systems which have brought many members to desperate poverty.

    Peter, as I was having this discussion months ago with an individual, I told him that when people say don’t listen to the Scholars, what they are really saying is LISTEN TO US, but disregard those who have collegiately received training in the Biblical languages and who take the Scriptures very seriously. I propose that it is wrong for a person to say be skeptical of scholars, but at the same time suggest I read the Study in the Scriptures. Did Russell have any training in Biblical Greek? Its the same with the Governing body, without good training in the Languages, they have made disastrous mistakes in the interpretation of Scripture, [which Ray Franz acknowledged] Russell and GB both said don’t listen the Scholars, but what they really mean is LISTEN TO US, even though we have no training, even though we cannot prove we are inspired by God. >>TEST THE SPIRIT<< I have found them to be in tremendous error. Their past history is against them, but as previously stated Russell did not at first believe Jesus was Michael, nor did Arias(ca. AD 250–336), from whom Russell and JW's borrow some of their belief.

    Listen I know that you are serious student of the Bible and you have a good heart. If you would like to advance your studies I propose that you collect Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics by Daniel B. Wallace, and purchase an interlinear translation and take a fresh look at his whole concept. Surely you are ready to move beyond the 1886 teachings from the "Studies in the Scriptures". Its now 2014, 100 yrs. from the failed prophecy of 1914. Its time to move on and not be captives of the pre-existence concept.

    I will try to address all your points as time permits

    Peace and Blessings

    Keepha

    • Jacqueline

      Not meaning to jump in here, don’t know Hebrew or greek but Gen 1:26 (NRSV)” Then God said, ” Let US make humankind in OUR image, according to OUR likeness;……….
      Vs 27 “So God created humankind in his image.”
      My actual home (and 3 more in a row) was built it is said by Mr. Barnum, a contractor, now deceased. The reality is he was Barnum and Son, His son was as much involved as his father especially the electric components and the certain style of building in sand. But his dad is always credited with building these basement brick homes.
      So it is easy for humans to understand this seeming contradiction between these verses, because we see it everyday in normal life. We would understand that they were a team and other scriptures posted by Br. Peter earlier indicates that the son was given great latitude.
      Keep in mind. I don’t know Hebrew or Greek, this is just what a normal reader of the bible might conclude, the plowboy, for instance that Martin Luther spoke of.
      And we can’t forget the Spirit that God used to move to and forth also. This same helper can cause the simple man, woman or child even to understand the bible as well as a scholar. Not to imply that a good knowledge of Hebrew and Greek isn’t helpful or important and neccessary as I am enjoying this discussion, just a flipside of the coin. Now I will jump back out of this. Thankyou

  • Keepha

    Peter, the study of Biblical Languages helps reveal layers of beauty and truth in Scripture that may have been previously inaccessible. I would encourage you to engage with the Bible in this wonderful way. Peter I will prove my point exactly, right now, for instance {you wrote}Hebrews 11:3 “”Through faith we understand that the worlds [or ages] were framed BY the WORD (Jesus) of God, so that the things which are seen were NOT made of things which do appear .”

    {reply} I do not regard the logos as a divine being angel. I will get to my reasons later on that. For now since you quoted Hebrews 11:3 and you capitalize WORD.. can you look at the Greek text and tell me if the word “logos” appears in this text. I will patiently await your answer. So to recap..Does the word logos appear in Hebrews 11:3? yes or no

    Peace and Blessings

    Keepha

    • Peter K. (admin)

      Keepha – I agree with you on the importance of Biblical language study, however I am cautious since scholars and commentaries tend to explain with a bias toward their doctrinal belief, hence sometimes different scholars will put a different spin on how to interpret the text.

      In Hebrews 11:3, I did not mean to indicate that the Greek word was “Logos” is here, but rather that the Logos or Jesus as the agent Yahweh/Jehovah used to frame the worlds. The more important sister text is Hebrews 1:3, “2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds.” Here it is clearer that Jesus was the agent through which God created.

      Now I realize that you are skipping over a number of my points, which I understand, since we all are limited on time. However, I was concerned that you said Acts 13:33 and Heb 5:5 did not have the same word or tense for “begotten.” In fact they are and do. Both texts apply to when Jesus was resurrected from the dead. At that time, being the antitypical Aaron, he went into the Most Holy (heaven itself) of the antitypical tabernacle and sprinkled the blood of the Bullock (Jesus) on the Mercy Seat (satisfied justice by providing the Ransom on behalf of His body members). See Hebrews 9:23-25.

      Going back to what I said….
      Point 4 ) When He was raised from the dead to the Divine Spirit Nature. (Heb 5:5; Acts 13:33)

      You said, “notice that the Greek word Gennao in Heb 5:5 and Acts 13:33 are not spelled the same, nor do they have the same tense.” Well let’s take a look at the verses and find out. Both verses are in the perfect tense ( Strong’s 5758). Both are the exact same Greek word begotten γεγέννηκά (Strong’s 1080).

      Acts 13:33 (NKJV) “God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: ‘You are My Son, Today I have begotten [1080 (5758)] You.’

      Heb 5:5 (NKJV) So also Christ did not glorify Himself to become High Priest, but it was He who said to Him: “You are My Son, Today I have begotten [1080 (5758)] You.”

  • Keepha

    @Peter please listen closely dear brother. With all due respect I am aghast at the notion that you will not accept Isaiah 44:24 for what it plainly says; the text reads:
    NJB Isaiah 44:24 Thus says Yahweh, your redeemer, he who formed you in the womb: I, Yahweh, have made all things, I ALONE spread out the heavens. When I hammered the earth into shape, who was with me? Lets take a look at Psalms 83:18 which reads . . .You alone are the Most High over all the earth. . ..are we now to reinterpret this verse and say Yahweh is not ALONE the Most High? and again look at NJB Genesis 2:18 Yahweh God said, ‘It is not right that the man should be ALONE. I shall make him a helper.’ are we now to reinterpret this verse and say Adam was not ALONE but had a human counterpart? In both cases Ps 83& Gen 2:18 Yahweh and Adam were ALONE, so if we accept the ALONE language in these verses we must also accept it in Isaiah 44:24. I am not prepared to go against a direct quote out of Yahweh’s mouth, for I trust him that he would not deceive us in any manner. If he says that he created ALONE that is what I accept and I believe him over all others, it is as written: (Psalm 89:34) . . .And the expression out of my lips I shall not change. . .So I believe the Father. Also keep in mind that the Hebrew noun for ALONE occurs 105 times in scripture and always means alone, by oneself.

    Next, the Divine passive is not the “Granville Sharp’s Rule.” . It’s is a matter of semantics we must deal with the grammar and syntax in Biblical Hebrew and Greek. If we have to disregard the language in order to hold on to our presuppositions, then its shows that we don’t have a strong enough case. We must remember the Bible was NEVER inspired in the English Language, but was written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek, which the NWT forward acknowledges. As the JW’s recognize in that letter its not explicitly taught in scripture that Jesus is Michael. It is as the R. Yochanan Ben Zakkai said” a talmid(student) would never be allowed to utter something his Rabbi(Teacher) had not said, if we follow this rule then Jesus NEVER says he is Michael{FACT}.

    Jesus NEVER says he is the Creator or agent in that Genesis creation account, for Jesus attributes this to Father ALONE when he said ” He who created them from the beginning” (Matt. 19:4).beginning of the creation which God created until that time, and will not occur again(Mark 13:19). If Jesus had been the agent of the Genesis creation he gave no hint of this in spite of having many opportunities to do so. Furthermore, Paul and the heavenly beings also acknowledge that God was the constructor of the universe by His own hands
    It is as they say in Hebrew: A scripture in the dark can never interpret a scripture in the light. Isaiah 44:24 is clear. Yahweh alone created.
    Peace and Blessing
    Keepha

    • Peter K. (admin)

      Keepha – The context of Isaiah 44 is that God is telling Israel that the gods and idols of other nations are false God’s. They did not create the world, Yahweh/Jehovah did.

      Isaiah 44:8-9 (NKJV) “… Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one. Those who make an image, all of them are useless…”

      Read on through verse 25 as this theme is continued. The point is to contrast Yahweh/Jehovah as the true God, not the false gods.

      However, that does not mean that Yahweh could not have used an agent or agents to participate in the process under His direction. Take for example a Real Estate Developer who says, “I built the Happy Valley Home Development.” That would be true enough, even though he hired a general contractor, who hired dozens of subcontractors to get the job done. So Yahweh gets the credit no matter how much of it He did directly verses how much of it the Logos accomplished since Yahweh created the Logos.

      I cannot embrace your explanation of the “Divine Passive” ruling out the possibility that Yahweh could work through an agent if I do not fully understand it and if I cannot put the concept to the test for myself for consistency. Are you saying that there is no subjectivity involved in how the “Divine Passive” is applied and what conclusions you draw in terms of a possible agent assigned tasks by Yahweh/Jehovah?

      Of course Jesus did not come out directly and say He created the world. In John 16:12, Jesus said, “I have many more things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now.” He spoke in dark sayings (Psalms 78:2; Mt 13:11-13 Mr 4:34). The religious rulers were looking for an opportunity to kill him and they would have considered it blaspheme if Jesus said He created the world (as when He admitted He was the Christ and would be sitting at the right hand of God – Matt 26:63-66).

      Now up to this point I have been on the defensive. Since you have not asked me for evidence to support my view, I have not done so. However, at this point the discussion has gone too far for me not to present evidence that Yahweh/Jehovah created the world through Jesus.

      John 1:3 “All things were made BY him [the Logos]; and without him was not anything made that was made.”

      Hebrews 1:2 “Has in these last days spoken unto us by his SON, whom he (the Father) has appointed him (Jesus) heir of all things, BY WHOM (Jesus) also HE (the Father) made the worlds [or ages].”

      Hebrews 11:3 ““Through faith we understand that the worlds [or ages] were framed BY the WORD (Jesus) of God, so that the things which are seen were NOT made of things which do appear .”

      Colossians 1:15-22 (NKJV) “15 Who [Jesus], is an image of the unseen God, Firstborn of all creation,– 16 Because, in him [Jesus], were created all things in the heavens and upon the earth, the things seen and the things unseen, whether thrones or lordships or principalities or authorities,–they all, through him and for him, have been created, 17 And, he [Jesus], is before all, and, they all, in him, hold together; 18 And, he [Jesus], is the head of the body, the assembly, Who [Jesus] is the beginning, Firstborn from among the dead, in order that, he [Jesus], might become, in all things, himself, pre-eminent; — 19 Because, in him [Jesus], was all the fullness well pleased to dwell, 20 And, through him [Jesus], fully to reconcile all things unto him, making peace through the blood of his cross, whether the things upon the earth or the things in the heavens; 21 And, you, who at one time were estranged and enemies in your mind in your wicked works, yet, now, hath he fully reconciled, 22 In his [Jesus’] body of flesh, through means of his death, to present you holy and blameless and unaccusable before him…”

      Ephesians 3:9-11 “And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the MYSTERY, which from the beginning of the world has been HID in God [the Father], WHO created all things BY Jesus Christ:
      10. To the INTENT that now unto the principalities and powers in heavenly places might be known by the church the manifold wisdom of God, 11. According to the eternal PURPOSE which he PUPOSED in Christ Jesus our Lord:”

      Proverbs 8:22-31 (Rotherham) “22 ¶ Yahweh, had constituted me [acquired, owned, brought forth formed, created] the beginning of his way, before his works, at the commencement of that time;
      23 At the outset of the ages, had I [Jesus] been established, in advance of the antiquities of the earth;
      24 When there was no resounding deep, I [Jesus] had been brought forth, when there were no fountains, abounding with water;
      30 Then became I [Jesus] beside him, a firm and sure worker , then became I filled with delight, day by day, exulting before him on every occasion…”

    • Peter K. (admin)

      Keepha – Jesus was the agent of creation; he was not the Creator himself. This concept and your concerns are well answered here:
      http://www.friendsofjehovahswitnesses.com/2011/02/25/did-jesus-have-a-beginning-was-he-created/

  • Keepha

    @Peter ” For by Him all things ” does the Greek literally read by Him all things were created. What about the Divine Passive? Yahweh said he created alone. NAU Isaiah 44:24 Thus says Yahweh, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, “I, Yahweh, am the maker of all things, Stretching out the heavens by Myself And spreading out the earth all alone,
    Did not Yahweh say he created the Heavens and Earth alone? This participle is in the 1st person common singular, so Yahweh alone created or else we violate the Hebrew grammar of this verse.

    • Peter K. (admin)

      Keepha – Exodus 3:5-6 (NKJV) says, “5 Then He said, “Do not draw near this place. Take your sandals off your feet, for the place where you stand is holy ground.” 6 He said, “I am the God of your father–the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” And Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God.”

      Sounds like God spoke directly to Moses, doesn’t it? Yet Exodus 3:2 (NKJV) says “And the Angel of the LORD appeared to him in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush.”

      So it really wasn’t God speaking to Moses, even though He said, “I am the God of your father… Abraham.” God spoke through His angel. So it is the same principle. The Bible says “God created” and it also explains that He created through His first creation, the Logos.

      How can you prove something like the “Divine Passive,” when it applies and does not? How are you certain that whenever this “Divine Passive” is used it cannot mean Yahweh accomplishes something through an agent. I am suspicious about these rules. The Trinitarians do the same thing (i.e. Coldwell’s rule).

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>