Journeyman
Bashing the terminology of the CCC is not an argument. Of course the ascension to heaven and the "sitting" at right of the Father is to be meant after the resurrection, which is to be meant according to his humanity. According to his divinity there is no change, since God does not change. The key is dual nature, the hypostatic union of Jesus.
Yep, Christ took the human nature, including the body, the flesh. JWs deny it, since according to their theology, Jesus' body is destroyed, ceased to be a human, and his "resurrection" is actually just a re-creation into being Michael again.
The reinterpretation of the resurrection as a re-creation into Michael false and bogus theology, since according to John 2:19-22, it's obviously Jesus' body is actually resurrected, and that's how He has ascended to Heaven. According to the Orthodox-Catholic Christianity the Son took the human nature, the humanity by the Incarnation and will not take it down.
The verses you have cited does not exclude this, because it only excludes the idea that one can enter heaven with our mortal and corruptible bodies. God has prepared heaven for according to the resurrected bodies, which requires that our corruptible bodies be raised. The "flesh and blood" represent our animalistic, mortal, and corruptible nature, our earthly resemblance to Adam. From this, we learn that eternal happiness does not depend on sensual pleasures, and that we must die to our sensual, animalistic life and live according to the spirit of Christ if we want to attain eternal life. Our bodies are earthly, but the Savior will transform and glorify this mortal body with His divine power at the resurrection, conquering everything, even death and hell. This is what the 15th chapter of 1Corinthians is about. Jesus did not ascend to heaven with His mortal and corruptible body, but with His resurrected, glorified body.
Perhaps the "two-class" salvation theory invented by Rutherford in 1935 is confusing you here, check this:
http://manonthemoon.byethost24.com/144000/144000-heaven.pdf
But here does the Bible declare that Son is the same as archangel Michael? Nowehere. Jesus Christ, "who is over all, the eternally blessed God" (Rom 9:5), "through whom everything was made" (Heb 2:10; cf. Jn 1:2-3), in whom "all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" (Col 2:9), who is "the true God and eternal life" (1Jn 5:20), the "only Lord" (Jude 1:4), "the first and the last" (Rev 1:17-18; 2:8; cf. Is 44:6), "the Lord of lords and the King of kings" (Rev 17:14) cannot be identified with an angel, with Michael, who is "one of the chief princes" (Dan 10:13, cf. Hebrews 1). The Scriptures never call Jesus an angel, let alone Michael.
The difference between Jesus and Michael is also well illustrated by their relationship with Satan: Jude's letter establishes the truth that Satan has greater authority than Michael. The apostle Jude writes that Michael "did not dare" to bring condemnation/judgment on Satan (Jude 9; cf. 2 Peter 2:11), but Jesus pronounced a clear judgment on him (Jn 16:11; cf. John 5:22, 27; 1 John 3:8; Col 2:15).
The place they refer to (1Thess 4:16) is so forced that I can only marvel at anyone who falls for it. It does not say that it's Jesus's voice, but rather that it's the voice of the archangel, accompanying His arrival. The phrase "His archangelic voice" is not present in 1 Thess 4:16, instead it simply states: "with the voice of the archangel." It continues to say "with the trumpet of God." Therefore, if Jesus, according to this misinterpretation, is an archangel, then the same logic proves His deity.
The "voice of the archangel" does not mean someone's, i.e. Jesus' archangelic voice, but the voice of an archangel. The Greek text is particularly clear, because it contains a possessive structure, not an adjective. On top of that, if someone has an archangelic voice and speaks with it, it should not be written as "with the voice of the archangel," but rather as one word: "with his archangelvoice." Therefore, the phrase "the Lord's voice is the voice of the archangel" is not written anywhere. It's a misinterpretation. Even if we had to rely solely on the Bible, we would know that there are at least two archangels: Michael and Satan. By this illogical conclusion, Jehovah created Himself when He created Michael.
The "Lord" mentioned afterward in the textis obviously not referring to Michael. This downgrading of Christ to an angel is very Jewish in nature, and if they want to proudly wear this badge, I won't stand in their way. At most, I will keep quoting the letter to the Hebrews, which says that Christ is not an angel, because "to which of the angels did He ever say," etc. etc.
We need to specifically address this claim, as it is inseparably linked to the issue of salvation (soteriology). According to the understanding of Jehovah's Witnesses, the archangel Michael went through three levels: Jehovah created him earlier than "all other" creatures, including Satan (first level). At the beginning of our era, he left the realm of spiritual creatures and became the perfect human, Jesus Christ, in order to pay the ransom for Adam's transgression with the sacrifice of his perfect human life (i.e., his body) (second level). After his death as a man on the "stake", Jehovah placed him again as a spiritual creature - at a level higher than before - at the "divine" level, into the heavenly glory, where he received the ability to "materialize" the bodies of the "resurrected" Jesus with the help of Jehovah (third level).
Above all, it becomes apparent how double-faced the image of God by Jehovah's Witnesses is. They claim that God "must" prove (???) His sovereignty in the face of Satan's challenge. Even if they could find a basis for such a notion in Job 1, they should not go so far as to put God on the same level as Satan, as if they were competitors, and God needs to prove Himself stronger than Satan. Such thoughts, even if Jehovah's Witnesses would vehemently deny them, dangerously approach dualism (two usually equal powers fighting for dominance).
This contradicts entirely the omnipotence, uniqueness, and sovereignty of YHWH (see Ex 2:20; Deut 6:4). Such statements by Jehovah's Witnesses about God provide further evidence that they do not know the real, absolute God, but instead construct their own "god" who must fit into the world drama they have planned. This is fully apparent when we look at Christ. Christ is not a creature, but the second person of the divine Trinity. Thus, further elaboration would be unnecessary on whether he is identical with the archangel Michael. However, questions arise in relation to the theology of salvation that necessitate a closer look at the image of God held by Jehovah's Witnesses. Here we see that the dualistic image of God held by Jehovah's Witnesses continues on different levels.
They assert a dualism between Michael and Satan, Jesus and Satan, and - on a different level - between (Michael-)Jesus and Adam. Because they consider Jesus to be only an angelic being, or - temporarily - just a human, such opposition seems legitimate between what are essentially "equal partners" or "contractors". Meanwhile, they ignore that Jesus is not on the same level as angels and people, but is entirely on God's level. His temporary existence as a human should not be misunderstood as him being merely human, but he was at once a true God and a true man. During his earthly work, he did not declare his "angelic being," but his divine form, without losing his divine nature.
Jehovah's Witnesses, on the other hand, devalue Christ. Although they assign a central place to his "ransom" - his sacrifice, they believe this is not sufficient for salvation). Jehovah's Witnesses primarily cite four biblical passages in support of the alleged identity of Jesus Christ and the Archangel Michael: Dan 12:1; 1 Thess 4:16; Jude 9; and Rev 12:7-12. In each place, the Archangel Michael is mentioned. "Michael" means "who is like God?" - not "he who is like God" (Russell erroneously translated it this way).
The fact that Michael is "one of the" chief angels and, as the "commander" of the divine angel armies, has a special place is evident from every biblical passage where his name appears, but he is never identified as Christ. Jesus, rather, stands above Michael and all angels (see Heb 1 etc.; see above). For example, when Dan 12:1 and Rev 12:7-12 speak of a battle between Michael and Satan, Michael acts here with the full authority and commission of Christ, but not as Christ. Scripture repeatedly emphasizes that Christ does not fight Satan and demonic powers alone, but with the company of his angels - and among them, Michael the Archangel holds the first place, whose voice will sound with the trumpet of God at the return of Christ (1 Thess 4:16; cf. Mt 24:30; 2 Thess 1:7). Michael's voice will only resonate loudly at the time of world judgment. However, at the resurrection of the dead, only the voice of Christ, the Son of God, will be heard. Only Christ - not the Archangel Michael - has the power to bring the dead back to life (Jn 5:25,28).
""But by the theory of the trinity, the three are co-equal, co-eternal and one in essence, nature, power, action, and will"
It still doesn't mean whenever the Bible talks about one or two of them, it has the mention all three of them everytime. In the Hebrews 1 the topic is the Son's unique relation to the Son, and his absolute superiority to all the angels. The Bible distinguish the Spirit from God's force, even talking about the power/force of the Spirit. So what would that be? Force of the force of God? It's quite ironic that even the Arians of the 4th century denied the personality of the Spirit.
Matthew 11:27 does not deny that the Spirit is omniscient, since it definitely stated elsewhere (for example 1 Corinthians 2:9–12). Whether an exclusive diction can be joined to the personal term? “That they may know thee [i.e. the Father], the only true God.” (Jn 17:3); “No one knows the Son but the Father.” (Mt 11:27). All these verses must be understood as exclusive not of the other Persons of the Trinity but only of other natures.
Jesus is called "our only Lord" in the NT.
So if calling the Father "only true God" rules out the Son cannot be true God, so the Father can't be Lord.
1Jn 1:2 calls Jesus true God.
The quickest way to demonstrate the JW's erroneous interpretation verses like this, or John 17:3 is to examine Ephesians 4:4-6 and 1Cor 8:6. If the title "One God" for the Father excluded Jesus from deity, then the title "One Lord" would likewise exclude the Father from being Lord. But we know that both of them are Lord. On the other hand, the Father is not only called the "only true God" (John 17:3), but also the "only Savior" (Isaiah 43:11; 45:21; Hosea 13:4; Jude 25), the "only King" (Zechariah 14:9). If John 17:3 excluded Jesus from being the "true God," then Jesus would also be excluded from being the Savior or the King. In contrast, Jesus is called the "only Teacher" (Matthew 23:8, 10; Matthew 10:24; John 13:13), the "only Master" (Jude 4; 2 Peter 2:1), and the "only Lord" (Jude 4; Ephesians 4:4; 1 Corinthians 8:4, 6; Matthew 6:24). If we were to exclude Jesus from being the true God based on John 17:3, then we would also have to exclude the Father from being our Teacher, Master, or Lord.
So the Father is the only true God doesn't mean "only the Father is true God alone" (and the Son is not), because this formulation excludes the false gods from the deity, not the Son.
Thus, “no one” does not mean no other person, but rather no other nature. Thus, when the term only is applied to one of the divine Persons, the other Persons are not excluded – for all are united through the unity of the single divine Essence. However, this only holds true for those things which are predicated of the Persons by reason of the shared Essence. Thus, each and every Person of the Trinity is said to know the others, to be all powerful, to be most holy, etc. Some terms, on the other hand, are not predicated of the Persons by reason of the Essence, but rather by reason of the relation. Examples of this would be: The Father alone is un-begotten; the Son alone is begotten; the Spirit alone proceeds from the Father and the Son. Finally, in the case of the second Person, some terms are predicated not by reason of his divinity (either his divine Nature or his divine relations) but on account of his human nature. Thus, only the Son became incarnate; only the Son has died; only the Son will come again. Regarding the use of terms like “alone” or “only” or “no one”: Such a way of speaking is not to be taken too literally, but should be piously expounded.
