So far as Ive been told in ther 80s and 90s JW always taught Jesus was in Genesis 18, 32, (As 'the angel representing Jehovah and fighting Jacob. Exodus 3, 23 (As the angel in the bush and the one whsose name Jehovah was in. Numbers 22 was speculated as to wether Jesus was the one stopping Balaam. Joshua 5 was Jesus in every occurance I remember when this was talked about. Judges 6 and 13 were speculated but never confirmed as far as I know. I do know an elder once said that Jesus was the angel in Hezkiahs time who killed 185000 Assyrians.
Jesus in the old testament
Jws aren't as far removed from trinitarian thinking as they really think.
Every time I would come across scriptures where Jesus was called a god, judge, was the one coming, was his day not Jehovah's, was a rock, etc. I always had difficulty reconciling these with how Jehovah played into all of it. Let's face it, Jehovah (symbolic for Baal) says there is no other God but him, there is no other savior but him, there is no other rock but him, etc. Clearly, Jehovah knew Christ would eventually become all of these and much more. Yet here he is contradicting himself. Heck he said these things after Christ was the Rock Moses struck for the Israelite's to drink water!
The fact is Jesus is Jehovah's glory, arm, hand, etc. and Jesus came OUT of Jehovah or separated himself from him and will go back to being one with him once he has accomplished what he set out to do. There's a verse I think in Revelation or maybe 1 Corinthians where it says Jesus will hand the kingdom back to his father so the father can be all in all to all. So what is Jesus going to be doing after he is done? Also there's another verse in Zechariah where God says in the end his name will be one.
Why the witnesses would somehow believe that Jehovah created Jesus like humans have or create children, is not only stupid but down right deceitful. God and Christ are spiritual beings and they are not like humans. Why would God need a son just to enjoy fatherhood like humans do? Why would God need a son to complete him? And besides there's also that additional point on why God would ask humans and angels to worship a "created" being in Jesus. This would contradict God in what he inspired about worshiping creation.
The reality is God and Jesus are one in the same although this is not explicitly spelled out in the scriptures.
Thats exactly the conclusion I came too. Jesus is basically just God's avatar in the old testament and having the attributes of limitations of a human in the new testament.
Thats about as simple as I can put it.
David-Jay said..."Thus the Jehovah's Witnesses and their concept of the connection between the two sets of Scriptures finds no support in Judaism or the oldest and original form of Christianity. To accept Jesus as Messiah and as "the connection between the Testaments" requires reading something new into the Scriptures of the Jews, at least according to Catholicism and Judaism."
So, what does that say about the depth of biblical teaching perpetuated in catholicism and judaism? Luke 6:46-49
Actualy, Myelaine, you are quoting from a follow-up of a previous quote.
The original was a direct quote from a 2001 Pontifical Biblical Commission document in which the Catholic Church teaches that Jesus fulfills a role of the Messiah that is not immediate. Catholicism believes that the Hebrew Scriptures, while providing many details in prophecy about the Messiah, were transcended by the coming of Jesus in that Catholics see him as a Messiah that imbued the Hebrew prophecies with far greater meaning than the Jews had expected and could not forsee.
The "something new" I spoke of was provided by Christ himself as he explained how his life (which followed a path even his apostles didn't expect--for instance, see Matthew 16:21-23) fulfilled the Scriptures. (See Luke 24:25-27, 44-47.) Without Christ, says Catholic doctrine, no one was privy to how these things would fit together in fulfillment. It was new, not something known to the Jews before.
Jewish scholars acknowledge this teaching of the Catholic Church, that this was a transcendent intrepretation, not direct or immediate. To claim that it is otherwise means that people like Peter would have expected Christ to be crucified. But neither he nor any of the apostles of even John the Baptist knew the scope of Christ's view. But Jews don't have an official stand on how direct or indirect Jesus was about his claims. The statement was that Judaism acknowledges the claim of transcendent fulfillment held by Catholicism, not that Jews have that view themselves.
By contrast, the teaching of Jehovah's Witnesses is that the prophecies about the Messiah are far more immediate and direct, clear enough for anyone to fully accept Jesus at first blush.
Something else I find odd once I understand who bible scholars though jesus was in the old testament, the proof texts jws use to try and disprove jesus being god really mean nothing. I think the most quoted being " there is one true God the Father and one he sent forth jesus christ".
I have to concur. Upon leaving the Witnesses I learned what Trinitarians actually believe. In all honesty none of the arguments advanced by Jehovah's Witnesses work with Trinitarians because Witnesses always start off with a false premise of misunderstanding what the Trinity is to begin with. Being that the doctrine was pre- and post-Biblical, the arguing from Scripture to prove one way or the other with a Trinitarian never works.
From my current standpoint, I have to say it doesn't make sense to believe in Jesus if he is not God. While Jews, as you know, don't accept Jesus as the Messiah, as the side note Myelaine brought up about the Catholic Church's admission that the Messiahship of Jesus actually transcends instead of instantly rising from Hebrew Scripture leans in favor of Jesus being the Epiphany that the majority of Christianity claims him to be.
Jesus did not fulfill the immediate Messianic hopes of the Jewish people, which even the questions raised by his apostles prove (as for example Acts 1:6 demonstrates). Therefore something beyond these hopes must have been seen in Jesus that got his followers to come to the conclusion that they embraced. Jesus himself was often unusually silent about declaring he was the Messiah, and except for his outward statement to the Samaritan woman at Jacob's Well (John 4:25, 26), he generally refused to openly acknowledge or support such a conclusion. Something beyond the Jewish concept of the Messiah was at work here, and as Catholicism acknowledges, it has become the touchstone of the Christian belief about a Messiah who redeems through his own self-surrendering sacrifice.
It would also make sense that this transcendent Messiahship of Jesus would contrast with the Great Theophany. For the Jews, God appeared through visible signs, in fear-inspiring flames, trumpet blasts, and thunderous voice at Mt. Sinai during the Great Theophany, whereas (according to Christians) God later comes through the visible sign of a humble human, hidden from sight in the Person of Jesus as Epiphany. In Theophany, the invisible God is made apparent through visible demonstrations, whereas in the Epiphany, the invisible God is hidden in human form, though visible. The Theophany demanded Moses to go up on behalf of the people in order to get God's Law, whereas in the Epiphany, God descends to the people in order to bring them God's liberation from the demands of law. In the Theophany, Moses is the mediator that brings God to the people, whereas in the Epiphany, God is now directly involved with the people through Jesus. The Theophany brings forth physical Israel, the Epiphany brings forth spiritual Israel. The Theophany occurs with humans making offerings to God of the flesh and blood of bulls, whereas in the Epiphany, God offers his life to humankind on the cross as the "body and blood" of life-saving "food" for humanity.
Again, Jews don't believe in the Trinity or in Jesus as the Messiah. But I can see the logic behind Christendom's view. When you do it the JW way and Jesus is just the archangel Michael in the flesh, all the rest is lost. It makes even less sense. If the New Covenant that Christianity believes in is supposed to be greater than the Old given to the Jews, why would the Great Theophany be paralleled with the arrival of an angel in the flesh? That makes no sense at all. That isn't greater or even comparable to the Great Theophany. No, even as a Jew I declare that this required the Epiphany of God, no less. If it is a greater covenant, it needed something greater than a theophany, something only an epiphany could provide. The mere materialization of an angel, even that of an archangel, could not fit the pattern.
Didn't all the teachings of Jesus being in the Old Testament by the JW was just to make him out to be just another angel?
I am working late and just checking in but I do recall in the WT/Awake at least two times he is mentioned (directly or indirectly) in the Hebrew Scripture.
1). He did the voice ("apparently") for Baalam's talking donkey
2) He was the referee for the wrestling match between the angel and Jacob. He kept the match "clean" since the angel could have otherwise used illegal moves.
I'll check on the details when I get home.
Rub a Dub