Revelation 1.17 Jesus divinity? Or just "the first" raised from the dead"?

by Hellrider 239 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    Hellrider....I appreciate your attempt to distinguish Jesus from the angels, which is certainly appropriate for some NT books (e.g. Hebrews 1), but your generalized characterization of angels as postmortem humans is quite off the mark of what early Jews and Christians believed. Historically the concept of "angels" is rooted in the Israelite and Canaanite henotheistic notion of lesser gods (the 'lym "gods", 'lhym "gods", bny-'lhym "sons of God/gods", qdshym "holy ones", kkwb-'l "stars of El", etc.) forming the divine council; in the OT, the council of El-Elyon and later of Yahweh. Under subsequent monotheism in the post-exilic period, these were demoted to "angels". It is not necessarily the case that the heavenly assembly is not included in the Priestly creation narrative in Genesis 1; they are probably implicit in the plural "us" in 1:26 (cf. Isaiah 6:8 and the ANE parallels in ANET 68), and Job 38:7 similarly pictures the divine assembly as being present during creation. In later tradition (second century BC), the angels were created on the first day (Jubilees 2:2). Other notable references to the heavenly court appears in 1 Kings 22:19-23, Job 1:6, 2:1, Psalm 82:1-8, Isaiah 14:13, and Genesis 6:2-3 similarly incorporates the notion. Later traditions are parallel; the Life of Adam and Eve pictures the angels as present during the creation of Adam, and there was a robust tradition of heavenly angels descending to earth in the days of Enoch in 1 Enoch and Jubilees (which is adopted in 2 Peter 2:4 and Jude 6), who reveal heavenly knowledge to mankind.

    As for whether angels and humans are "of the same race" as you put it, most traditions posit both similarity and dissimilarity. Phrases such as "a likeness similar to human form" in Ezekiel 1:26 and "one in the likeness of the sons of men" in Daniel 10:16 emphasize the similarity while presuming that angels are not men. Although you stated that angels are not described as having wings, Ezekiel 1:5-6 strikingly states that "in appearance their form was that of a man but each of them had four faces and four wings". 1 Enoch 15 emphasizes the different nature of angels, that through intermarriage with humans they have mingled themselves with "the blood of the flesh" (v. 4-6), producing "giants from the union of spirits and flesh" (v. 8); the hybrid giants are described as 300 cubits in height (7:2). The different nature of the giants is highlighted in the Animal Apocalypse (early second century BC), which describes heavenly stars descending and mounting heifers, who subsequently give birth to such unclean animals as elephants, camels, and donkeys (1 Enoch 86:4). Note that the angels were sexually compatible with the women and presumably human in form, and yet they had a fundamentally different nature as revealed by the nature of their children, the "children of the angels of heaven" who have a "different form ... unlike a human being" (106:5-6). Note also the reference to heteros sarkos "different flesh" in Jude 6-7 (where the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah is compared to that of the fallen angels).

    It is certainly true that there are references to humans being exalted to angelic or semi-angelic form in the literature. Enoch, having been taken to heaven, becomes the Son of Man in the Book of Parables in 1 Enoch, becomes an angel in 2 Enoch (cf. "Let Enoch and join in and stand in front of my face forever ... Go and extract Enoch from his earthly clothing and put him in the clothes of my glory," 22:6-7), and the "lesser YHWH" in 3 Enoch. Adam is exalted as eschatological judge in the Testament of Abraham (ch. 11), Moses becomes exalted in heaven with the angels worshipping him in Ezekiel the Tragedian's Exagoge, Elijah is poised to return from heaven as an eschatological prophet in Malachi, the Animal Apocalypse of 1 Enoch, and Revelation (with Moses as one of the "two witnesses"), Melchizedek exalted to a messianic role in 11QMelch, etc. But these were the exceptions than the norm; the "myriads upon myriads" of angels (cf. 1 Enoch 1:9) were not conceived as exalted humans prior to the resurrection. The postmortem spirits of the righteous may have heavenly dwelling places "with the angels" (1 Enoch 39:4-5) but it is in the resurrection (when they are embodied and restored to corporeal form) when they are likened to angels or described as angels. The clearest description of the difference in nature of the "spiritual body" of resurrected people from the "physical body" of flesh is found in 1 Corinthians 15. The use of the word "saint" in the NT and in Second Temple Jewish writings (such as Daniel) is a rather late development that reflects the idea that the future eschatological reality is already inauguriated in the present community (cf. Philippians 3:20 in which Paul declares that Christians are already citizens of heaven).

  • Mondo1
    Mondo1

    Hellrider,

    Obviously you don't remember denying an intermediate use, but you did. Here is what you wrote:

    So, what you are saying is the following: "The word "God" carries with it more than one sense". I agree with this. There are in the Bible two previously known ways to use it: 1) The first one is in the sense the eternal God (monotheistic) and in the other,2) "god", it is is used as a title, for prophets, lawmakers and the like, much like "lord". However: You are introducing a third meaning of the word! I showed you how the meaning 2 is not the meaning of how the early church fathers used this word! You sidestepped this issue by not commenting on their statements at all! On the other hand, you are denying that the early church fathers used the meaning 1) about God. So basically, what you are saying is that there is a meaning in between 1) and 2). There is no Biblical foundation for this. The term can only be used either in the 1st sense (monotheistic) or in the 2nd sense (as just a title for some great person/prophet).

    Hopefully you'll see now what the issue was.

    Mondo

  • Hellrider
    Hellrider

    Leolaia: Thank you for clarifying the historical development of the (view on) angels. I don`t doubt for a second that everything you wrote is correct. I don`t even have 1% of the knowledge that you do, but the point here is that I am trying to meet Mondo1 somehow on a common ground. In his static view on the Bible (everything had a plan from the beginning, there is very limited "development" in the Bible, different books never contradict eachother, etc), he would not agree with much of what you wrote. When trying to have an argument with these folks, it doesn`t work presenting a historical view (of course, I never could do that on your level anyway) on the Biblical books and their developments, contradictions etc anyway. So then, when trying to present a more over-all correct Biblical view than they jws, one is bound to say some things that historically isn`t 100% correct, but "closer" to an overall Biblical view than the one they have (been brainwashed into believing). I don`t know if what I just wrote made much sense...hope you understood what I was trying to say.

    Mondo1:

    Hellrider,

    Obviously you don't remember denying an intermediate use, but you did. Here is what you wrote:

    So, what you are saying is the following: "The word "God" carries with it more than one sense". I agree with this. There are in the Bible two previously known ways to use it: 1) The first one is in the sense the eternal God (monotheistic) and in the other,2) "god", it is is used as a title, for prophets, lawmakers and the like, much like "lord

    Can you read?

  • Mondo1
    Mondo1

    Hellrider, Angels are not "like" the others. They are entirely different. The first two are human, angels are spirits. It seems you are trying to wiggle your way out.

    Notice how you claim the second use is.

    So basically, what you are saying is that there is a meaning in between 1) and 2). There is no Biblical foundation for this. The term can only be used either in the 1st sense (monotheistic) or in the 2nd sense (as just a title for some great person/prophet). Angels are not "some great person/prophet," they are *angels.*

    Mondo

  • Hellrider
    Hellrider

    Mondo1:

    Angels are not "some great person/prophet," they are *angels.*

    ...what is wrong with you? I distinguished between two (2 !) primary meanings of the term. On the one hand, it is a term used in an absolute sense, referring to the deity (the deity, the most high, El), and then there is the other sense, the term when used on anyone else than the deity, the most high. I have never claimed that the angels were to be considered equals with humans, but I would/will argue that they are not considered that much higher than humans; and I have argued for that view just two posts ago. The point here is that there are two meanings of the term "god". There is the one God, and then there is the term when used on anyone other than him. We can of course classify the term when used on "the others" in various ranks, but that is not important. Now that you are continuing posting to me, I assume that you are now going to respond to my arguments and questions?

    I didn`t think so. I guess the discussion is over (so now you can post your last devoid-of-actual-content post to me, and believe that you "won the discussion", because you got the last post). It`s 4am where I live. Good night, all.

  • Mondo1
    Mondo1

    Leolaia,

    Just to let you know, I have not forgotten about this thread. I will be breaking up my reply into three parts. One on Proverbs 8:22 (first), one on Revelation 3:14 (second) and one on Revelation 1:17-18 (last). I am nearly finished on Proverbs 8, so that should be coming within the next few days, as my schedule allows me to devote the necessary time to properly articulate the necessary response to each of the points that you argue for.

    Mondo

  • ellderwho
    ellderwho

    For Jesus, he remained who he was, but what he was changed. He was the same person, with a new type of existence.

    Mondo

    When you state Jesus was changed, changed from what to what? When you say he was the same person with a new existence how do you work this out?

  • Deputy Dog
    Deputy Dog

    EW

    When you state Jesus was changed, changed from what to what? When you say he was the same person with a new existence how do you work this out?

    All JWs know Jesus was part Man and part Angel or a human / angel hybrid. He was a human with the life force of an angel.

  • Death to the Pixies
    Death to the Pixies
    All JWs know Jesus was part Man and part Angel or a human / angel hybrid. He was a human with the life force of an angel.

    I have never heard that, is this an actual WT teaching? you can prove this with documentation?

  • Leolaia
    Leolaia

    There is no such claim of Jesus being a angel-human hybrid (Nephilim?), but they do say that the archangel Michael had his "life force" transferred into Mary's womb to be born as a perfect human:

    *** w60 3/15 p. 187 par. 14 Part 34—"Your Will Be Done on Earth" ***

    Is this Michael the resurrected, glorified and enthroned Jesus Christ? Yes. He is here the same as the Michael who helped the angel that brought the prophetic vision to Daniel. (Dan. 10:13, 21, JP) Before 2 B.C. God’s only-begotten Son in heaven was called Michael, this name meaning "Who is like God?" When he emptied himself of his heavenly powers and his life was miraculously transferred to the womb of the virgin Jewess Mary and he was born and called Jesus, did he forfeit his heavenly name Michael? No!

    *** w72 4/15 p. 237 par. 16 Laying the Foundations for God’s New Order ***

    In due time, by means of his holy spirit, Jehovah God transferred the life of his heavenly Son to the womb of the virgin Mary at Nazareth in Galilee.

    *** pe chap. 6 p. 57 par. 3 Jesus Christ—Sent by God? ***

    But how could a woman who had never had sexual relations with a man have a child? It was by means of God’s holy spirit. Jehovah transferred the life of his mighty spirit Son from heaven to the womb of the virgin Mary.

    *** w91 2/15 p. 14 par. 16 A Corresponding Ransom for All ***

    Jehovah transferred the life-force and the personality pattern of his firstborn heavenly Son to the womb of a Jewish virgin named Mary.

    *** g05 4/22 p. 4 Who Is Jesus Christ? ***

    These believed that Jesus was the promised Messiah. They learned that he had lived in heaven as a mighty spirit person and that his life had been miraculously transferred by God to the womb of the virgin Mary.

    ------------------------------> I'm having a pretty hard time understanding how an individual's life-force containing one's "personality" is somehow different from a soul.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit