Careful what you wish for! Regarding Jehovah in the New Testament

by pizzahut2023 81 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    aqwsed12345 : It is worth considering one of the new readings of Nestle-Aland's latest 28th edition

    I agree you have put the textual problem of Jude 5 clearly, but it was not a new reading. The first edition of the UBS Greek New Testament contained the reading "Jesus" in the text, but this was changed in the third edition when it was replaced with "Lord" in the text and "Jesus" in the margin. Now in NA28 they have returned "Jesus" to the text.

    In his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Bruce Metzger explains why "Lord" was preferred. He says the majority of the Committee was of the opinion that the reading was difficult to the point of impossibility and explained its origin in terms of transcriptional oversight (as the nomen sacrum for "lord" (ΚΣ) can be mistaken for the nomen sacrum for "Jesus" (ΙΣ)). They observed that nowhere else does Jude employ the name "Jesus" alone and others have queried whether Jude would refer to "Jesus" as "saving Israel out of Egypt" at a time when he was not known by that name.

    Verse 5 has a number of variations :

    I desire to remind YOU, despite YOUR knowing all things once for all time, that [ ΚΣ (Lord) / OΚΣ (the Lord) / ΙΣ (Jesus) / ΘΣ (God) / ΘΣΧΣ (God Christ) ], although he saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed those not showing faith.

    with the following manuscript support :

    Lord [ΚΣ] ... codex Sinaiticus (4th century), codex Athous Lavrensis (8th/9th century)

    the Lord [OΚΣ] ... codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (5th century), Syriac (7th century), codex Cyprius (9th century), codex Regius (13th century)

    Jesus [ΙΣ] ... codex Alexandrinus (5th century), Vaticanus (4th century), minuscule 33 (9th century), miniscule 1739 (tenth century), miniscule 1881, Origen, Cyril, Jerome, Coptic

    God [ΘΣ]... codex Ephraemi Rescriptus (2nd corrector), some Vulgate mss

    God [the] Christ [ΘΣΧΣ] ... papyrus 72 (3rd/4th century)

    All these variations suggest there was some confusion about the text, and the fact that "Lord" has no definite article in some manuscripts suggests it replaced a name. The original might have contained the name "Jesus" which many manuscripts support despite it being unlikely, but others have suggested that this textual confusion occurred because Jude originally used God's name in some form which is why NWT includes "Jehovah" in this verse.

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    https://www.affinity.org.uk/foundations/issue-75/issue-75-who-led-the-israelites-out-of-egypt/

    https://cdn.rts.edu/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Midwinter-Who-Led-Israel-Jude-5.pdf

    https://exegeticaltools.com/2017/11/20/yes-jesus-saved-destroyed-israelites/

    Although the substitution of the name Yahweh with Adonai (ho kyrios, the Lord) was partly a consequence of misunderstanding among the Jews, it was still of no small significance for the spread of the Old Testament revelation that prepared for Christ. It could almost be considered providential that after the Babylonian captivity - when the people of Israel began to interact more frequently with various pagan peoples of the world, and when the synagogues emerging everywhere provided an increasing number of centers for the religion of Israel far beyond the borders of Palestine, around which even the salvation-thirsty pagans gathered and began to familiarize themselves with the revelation - God did not become known to the pagans under the mysterious name of Yahweh, understood only by the Jews, which, as the peculiar name of the God of Israel's covenant, would surely have given them the impression that this was just another national deity.

    The name Yahweh -- as Gustaf Dalman correctly states (Studien zur biblischen Theologie: Der Gottesname Adonaj und seine Geschichte, Berlin, 1889, page 80) -- with which God revealed Himself to Israel and entered into a close relationship with Israel, distinguishing Himself from the gods of other nations, was only appropriate as long as divine revelation moved only within the confines of one nation. However, as soon as the Kingdom of God moved from "the people", "the nation", into the midst of "the peoples", "the nations", the proper name had to be dropped. The true God now had to appear before the peoples under a name that would express in a universally understandable word the relationship of the revealed God to the world, to all the peoples of the world. This name had to contain that what the false gods are only wrongly attributed, He and only He possesses in reality, i.e., divine dignity and power extending over all things, for which He justly demands obedience and submission from all nations of the world. For these indications, the word "Lord", the "Adonai", the "Kyrios" was undeniably the most suitable.

    So, as Israel gave way to humanity becoming the subject of God's saving activity, Adonai replaced Yahweh as the head and executor of this action. The God of Israel thus became the Lord before whom the whole world must bow, for He is the Lord of the whole world. As Adonai, the God of Israel was proclaimed to the peoples of the world, and as the Lord of the world, He began His triumphant journey among the peoples, and under this name the peoples of the world have been worshiping Him and pleading to Him for centuries, and will continue to worship and plead to Him for the centuries to come until the end of times.

    The substitution of the name Yahweh with Adonai is no less noteworthy when we consider that the Old Testament's LORD, Yahweh, who often appears as "the Angel of the LORD", "the Angel of God", and "the Angel of the Gods" respectively, and manifests Himself in various theophanies, is not the Father, but in fact the second person of the divinity, the Son, same in essence with the Father, the pre-Incarnate Word (Logos), but after His Incarnation, He was to appear in the New Testament as the Lord Jesus Christ, the Kyrios Jesus Christ.

    The Hebrew word Malak in fact simply means the envoy, the messenger (missus, legatus), and later angel, messenger (angelus, nuntius) who is God's delegate, messenger to people. The Angel of the LORD, or the Angel of God in the quoted places does not represent a common, created angel, but an entity infinitely higher than the angels. This "Angel" of the LORD, or the "Angel" of God, although a separate person from the Father, is same in essence with God (Exodus 23:21, the Lord Himself says of him: "my name is in Him", that is, I appear in and through him); divine attributes and operations are attributed to him, and he is even directly called Yahweh, God; those who see him treat him with divine respect and homage, which he accepts from them, and he generally acts as God. This Angel of God, or delegate, messenger to people, as we will see, is none other than the Son, the as yet unincarnated divine Word, the Logos.

    He has appeared to Hagar repeatedly in the desert (Gen. 16, 7, and later; 21, 17, and later), who clearly calls the "Angel of the Lord" "Yahweh" and "her God" (16,13); Abraham in Mamre, accompanied by two angels: promises the old Sarah a son, Abraham countless generations and announces the destruction of the Valley of Siddim (Gen. 18 and 19.1; The Angel of the Lord here is repeatedly called "Yahweh" (18, 13. 17, 19. 20. 22. 26, 33.) and His divine omnipotence is attributed to Him (18, 14); then he appears again when he wanted to sacrifice his son, Isaac (Gen. 22, 11 and later; see 22, 16 and later); he appeared to Jacob, fleeing from Esau, in a dream at Bethel, calling Himself Yahweh and renewing the promises made to Abraham and Isaac (Gen. 28); later in Mesopotamia, where he asks him to return to his homeland (Gen. 31:11 and later); then upon returning, in the form of an unknown man wrestling with him at the Jabok river (whom the prophet Hosea calls "the Angel of God" (12:5), who blesses Jacob and changes his name to "Israel" (wrestler with God) (Gen. 32:24 and later); Moses in the burning bush (Ex. 3:2 and later), where he revealed His name, Yahweh, and stated that He is the God of the patriarchs etc; it was this "Angel of the Lord" who delivered the Israelites from Egypt, led and protected them in the wilderness, gave them the law on Mount Sinai; this is what hovered before the people in the form of a pillar of cloud (Ex. 14:19), which is why it is called "Yahweh's cloud" (Ex. 40:34); He also appeared to Balaam, who arrived on a donkey to curse the Israelites, whom he first invisibly stopped in his path and after being beaten by Balaam, the donkey miraculously spoke in a human voice, becomes visible to Balaam and tells him that he can only speak according to God's command (Num. 22, 22-35); later to the Israelites in Ophrah as the people's guardian angel (Judges 6); to Manoah's barren wife (the future mother of Samson) he promises a son and accepts Manoah's sacrifice (Judges 13). — Since the introduction of the kingdom, He appears less and less frequently, because after the establishment of the kingdom and the prophetic institution, God used his regular tools and substitutes to lead and teach his people; but the operation and mention of "the Angel of the Lord" did not cease. "The Angel of the Lord" was the one who, in the time of King Hezekiah, destroyed 185,000 people in one night in the Assyrian camp besieging Jerusalem in vain; the prophet Isaiah calls this as the liberator of the people "the Angel of the Lord's face" (see Isaiah 63:9), through whom God shows his face, that is, appears to people, therefore in the sense in which the New Testament also calls Christ the "image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15), "the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his being" (Heb. 1:3), that is: the manifest image of the unseen Father's divine being. The prophet Ezekiel also saw the Angel of the Lord in his rapture in the form of a man sitting on a royal throne (Ezek. 1:26 and later): the prophet Daniel, however, as the "son of man" on the clouds of heaven (Dan. 3,:49 and later). The "Angel of the Lord" also frequently appears in the visions of the prophet Zechariah (Zech. 3:1 and later; 12:1 and later); the prophet Malachi, however, prophesied to the Jews; "The Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple, and the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire..." (Mal. 3:1). — When the institution of prophecy, having fulfilled its divine calling, ceased with Malachi, the Angel of the Lord completely withdrew, only to appear a few centuries later embodied on earth in the Lord Jesus Christ.

    In the Old Testament, the hidden Father is not strictly distinguished from the self-revealing, the one working for the benefit of people, the Son of God, both are called Yahweh (Adonai, Lord). The distinction only occurred in the New Testament, after God, the eternal Word, became human. And only the New Testament shed light on the fact that what the Old Testament often generally says about God or attributes to him, is actually meant to be about the Son of God, the Logos, who was the executor of what the Father God had ordered. The New Testament also reveals that both the Old and the New Testament were written by the same author; the Son of God; the Old Testament as the not yet incarnate Logos, the New Testament as the already incarnate Logos.

    For the Father, according to the teaching of the Bible, has never appeared to people, no one has ever seen him; he dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man can see; his essence is invisible (1 John 18:6, 46; 1 John 4:12; Rom 1:20; Col 1:15; 1Tim. 1:17; 6, 16; Ex 33:20; Deut 4:12). Therefore, when the Old Testament speaks of the appearances of God (the theophanies), these cannot be attributed to the Father, for according to the promise we will only see him in the afterlife (Matthew 5:8; 1 John 3:2-3; Re 2:1, 3, 22:23.), - but to the not yet incarnate Son of God, the Logos. This can already be inferred from the wonderful visions of Ezekiel (1:26-28) and Daniel (7:13-14). The former saw a human figure sitting on a throne, surrounded by light; the latter saw the "son of man" on the clouds of heaven, which obviously refers to the future incarnation of the Logos, the God-man Jesus Christ. But this is clearly written about in the New Testament: John, Paul, Judas Thaddeus, and the Apostle Peter.

    John the Evangelist says (12:41) that Isaiah saw (in divine revelation) the glory of Christ (the divine power and nature of the future Messiah and Savior, which manifested in Jesus's teachings and miracles before the Jews). Here John refers to the sublime vision obtained at the time of the prophet's calling, as described in Isa. 6:1—10. The Adonai (Lord, Isa. 6:1) seen in that vision, for whom the Targum uses the expression "the glory of Yahweh", is according to John none other than the revealing Son of God, the divine Word, (the Logos, John 1:1; 12:41), who as from the beginning was the mediator of all divine revelation. In this amazing vision, He appeared as the radiance of the Father's glory and the exact representation of His being (Heb. 1:2-3; John 17:24). Isaiah, however, does not explicitly describe Him as the Son of God, but speaks generally of the God of the Old Testament, referring to Him only as "the Lord" (YHWH), since the triune nature of God was not clearly revealed in the Old Testament.

    In this vision, the same Adonai also spoke to Isaiah and commanded him (in verses 9 and 10) to prophesy to the Jewish people about their willful disbelief, which fully manifested in Jesus's time when the Jews largely remained unreceptive to his teachings, miracles, and actions. By abusing their free will, they chose not to believe, which led to their complete spiritual blindness and stubbornness.

    Paul teaches that during the forty-year journey in the wilderness, Christ was the leader and benefactor of the Israelites, whose blessings followed them at every step. Moreover, the frequent grumblings and rebellions of the Israelites were directed against Christ, who was their guide and companion (1 Cor. 10:4,9). Paul also states that it was Christ who shook the earth at the giving of the law on Mount Sinai (Heb. 12:26).

    According to Jude Thaddeus, Jesus (the Lord) delivered Israel from Egypt and destroyed the unbelievers (Jude 1:5). Some significant manuscripts (like the Alexandrian and Vatican codices, and the Vulgate) use 'Lord' instead of 'Jesus', and some textual critics, including Karl Lachmann (died 1851), consider this latter reading to be more authentic. By the way, the "kyrios" read in the Sinai manuscript also refers to Jesus.

    Peter says that the prophets spoke through the Spirit of Christ, that is, the not yet incarnate Son of God, the Spirit of the Logos, who prophesied about His suffering and glorification through them (1 Peter 1:11). John, Paul, Jude Thaddeus, and Peter the Apostles used the names "Christ" and "Jesus" proleptically (anticipating), because the Eternal Logos (Word) only bore these names after incarnation as God-man. But they could anticipate, because the god who revealed himself in the Old Testament was the same Son of God who later appeared in Jesus Christ.

    Following the significant Church Fathers and writers (like Origen, Chrysostom, Augustine, Cyril, Theodoret, Bede, Theophylact, etc.), interpreters of the scripture also relate the words in John 1:10: "He was in the world" to the guidance of humanity by the not yet incarnate Logos. See also Baruch 3:36-38.

    The Council of Sirmium (AD 351) excommunicates those who would deny that it was with the Son of God (the Logos) that Jacob wrestled.

    The concept of the Church is shown by the so-called improperiums, or reproaches (antiphons and responsories), which are said in the Good Friday liturgy under the veneration of the cross for the ingratitude and infidelity of the Jewish people, because 1. He led the Israelites out of Egypt; 2. He guided them for forty years in the desert and finally led them to the fertile land of Canaan; 3. He struck Egypt with plagues and its firstborn with death for them; 4. He opened the Red Sea before them so that they could cross; 5. He buried Pharaoh's army in its waves; 6. He walked before them in the Pillar of Cloud; 7. He fed them with manna in the desert; 8. He quenched their thirst with living water from the rock; 9. He defeated the kings of Canaan for them; 10. He gave them royal law; 11. He elevated them with His power. The same is shown by the second "O" antiphon of the liturgy of the week before Christmas (Dec. 18): "Oh Adonai (God of the Covenant), Leader of the house of Israel, who appeared to Moses in the flame of the burning bush and gave him the law on Mount Sinai, come and redeem us with your mighty arm!"

    Based on the Church Fathers, the same is taught and irrefutably proven by modern Catholic theologians, to whom several orthodox Protestants also join.

    It was most appropriate that the Son of God, according to God's eternal decree, was meant to be the executor of redemption, prepare the way for redemption, gradually prepare the entire Old Testament for what he wanted to accomplish after his incarnation. The whole relationship of the Old Testament to the New almost demanded that the activity of the Redeemer, who is the center of all history, has not remained unknown since it was first promised (Ex. 3:14), because what God did for the salvation of mankind, He did through His Son (John 1:3). However, due to the great tendency of the Jews to idolatry, this could initially only happen in theophanies (divine manifestations), not in incarnation. Thus, the various theophanies of the Son of God, especially his temporary appearances in seemingly human form, were not only types of the future incarnation of the divine Word but also preparations for his incarnation, divine-human appearance, making man more receptive to the idea of incarnation.

    The "Lord" of the Old and New Testaments is therefore one and the same. He whom the nations recognized as the "Lord" at the end of the Old Testament, and whom the whole Old Testament prepared mankind for, in whom the fullness of divinity took bodily form, and through whom we must be saved (Acts 4:12): Jesus of Nazareth rightfully bears that majestic name, which Philo calls "the name above all names", because the God the Father made him "both Lord and Christ" (Acts 2:36), because he is "Lord of all" (Acts 10:36; cf. Nedarim 22b), the "King of Kings and Lord of Lords" (Rev. 19:16; cf. Deut. 10:17 and Ps. 136:3, Lord). He is "God over all, blessed forever" (Rom. 9:5)... "Jesus Christ is Lord" (Phil. 2:11).

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    aqwsed : it was this "Angel of the Lord" who delivered the Israelites from Egypt, led and protected them in the wilderness, gave them the law on Mount Sinai;

    Your lengthy justification for the removal of God's name is interesting, but in the context of Jude vs 5 you seem to maintain that the manuscript support for "Jesus" is warranted as it was the "angel of the Lord" who delivered the Israelites from Egypt, and you identify that angel with the preincarnate "Jesus". Jehovah's Witnesses agree with much of what you say regarding the role Jesus played as the "angel of Jehovah (YHWH)" in his dealings with the patriarchs and the nation of Israel, and this is additional reason (not to digress) they accept the identification of him with the archangel Michael.

    But you do not address the very obvious anomaly that the name "Jesus" is used in this context, where we are referring to a time when the only person with the name "Jesus" was Joshua (the Hebrew form of the Greek 'Jesus'), and the verse apparently does not refer to him. There is nowhere in scripture to suggest that the "angel of Jehovah" was known by the name 'Jesus' prior to his earthly existence. Which is why the UBS Committee was of the opinion that the reading ("Jesus") in this verse was difficult to the point of impossibility. How much more likely it is that God's name was used in some form and was subsequently replaced by whatever the copyists of various manuscripts could find to fit.

  • pizzahut2023
    pizzahut2023

    The Tetragrammaton it was certainly not in Jude 5. Nor anywhere in the NT.

    It's a moot point for those who believe in the Trinity, it's just a "nod" to them if Jesus was in the text.

    Trinity believers won't see a difference if it's "Jesus", "The Lord", or "God", or even, "Jehovah".

    It's only non-Trinity believers who will have a huge issue if it's "Jesus".

    Just my two cents.

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    pizzahut2023 : The Tetragrammaton it was certainly not in Jude 5.

    How do you know when the earliest manuscript evidence we have for Jude 5 is in the third/fourth century? And when the tetragrammaton or other forms of God's name occurs in all copies of the LXX prior to 200.

    Trinity believers may not see a difference if it's "Jesus", "The Lord", or "God", but the Jewish recipients of his letter at the time certainly would, being without the "benefit" of the development of the trinity doctrine hundreds of years later.

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    Earnest

    Have you ever heard of the term "burden of proof"? Does this "reasonable to assume" and the like, etc., which appear in the Watchtower on this matter, satify the concept of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt"?

    Because it's a bit ironic to mock which centuries the oldest available manuscripts our position come from, but how old are yours? How come there isn't any? Is that okay?

  • WokenfromJWcult
    WokenfromJWcult

    When this questionable translation was released , the fact that the men who did the translation remained anonymous, is all the information I need to reject their interpretation of the scriptures. Credentials of the men that did this should be available to all who read this translation because some readers are betting their lives that the translators are 100% correct. Readers have no recourse to address questions, such as the blatant addition of the word “other”, and changing crucify to “to the stake with him”.

  • Riley
    Riley

    In the old testament it says the LORD lead the Israelis out of Egypt, an angel with Name of the Lord and the presence of the LORD lead the Israelis out of Egypt.

    The point is it rather ambiguous who LORD is and I believe it is by design.

    The idea that the creator stepped into his creation as one of us seems a lot more appealing than god just tortured than Angel to death.

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    Jesus always called himself the only begotten Son of God, one and equal in dignity with the Father, eternal, omnipotent, the judge of the world, "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30) He constantly aligns himself with the Father ("Father, Son, Holy Spirit"), though as a man, he calls himself lesser than the Father.

    At the Last Supper, in response to Apostle Philip's request to show him the Father, Jesus emphatically replied, "Have I been with you so long, and you do not know me? Philip, whoever has seen me, has seen the Father" (John 14:9). The Jews once wanted to stone him specifically because he called himself God: "We are not stoning you for a good work but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God" (John 10:33). At the solemn request of the high priest to state whether he is the Son of God, Jesus responded with the most decisive yes. When the high priest and the entire Jewish council marked this as blasphemy with scandal, Jesus did not retract his statement. He also accepted the solemn homage from Thomas: "My Lord and my God" (John 20:28). He would not have left these words uncorrected if he did not know himself to be truly God. He solemnly proclaims that he hears requests directed to the Father (John 14:13). He declares that he existed before Abraham (John 8:58), even lived with the Father before the world was (John 17:5). He forgives sins committed against God by his own power and declares that he will one day be the judge of the whole world.

    Someone who speaks of themselves in this way can only be God, or a common charlatan, or a madman. Jesus, however, was truly not a madman, but the wisest man and most brilliant thinker in world history. He was even less of a charlatan and fraud, as his pure moral character excluded even the smallest sin, let alone such grave blasphemy and self-idolatry!

    If Jesus proclaimed himself as God and was worshipped as God, there can be only one explanation: that he was indeed God.

    The same is confirmed by the wonderful fulfillment of Old Testament Messianic prophecies in the person of Jesus; the truly divine brilliance of his teaching and moral supremacy that far surpasses all human; his many miracles performed in broad daylight before the crowds and also checked by his enemies, especially his own resurrection; the amazing vitality of his creation and Church, which has remained unchanged through the many storms, attacks, persecutions, and intellectual shifts of two thousand years and became the starting point of a new, brilliantly pure moral culture.

    But the JWs say that Jesus himself never calls himself God, "only" the Son of God. The two do not exclude each other, John also says at the beginning of his gospel: "The Word was with God." But he also adds; "And the Word was God." (John 1:1.) Jesus is the Son of God because he is one of the three divine persons; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The word "Son of God", especially as Jesus repeatedly uses it: the only begotten Son of God, based on the above, is actually more than the simple "God" word, which could be misunderstood and explained in the sense of pagan polytheism.

    In three senses can someone be the "son of God". In the broadest sense, every human being is a child of God, that is, a child of God's creative providence. In a narrower sense, sonship of God is tantamount to possessing supernatural grace, the supernatural rebirth of baptism (John 1:12, Gal 4:6). In the strictest sense, however, the Son of God is the Second Person of the Trinity, who was begotten from the Father from eternity and co-equal with the Father in everything. It was this Son of God who became man in Jesus Christ, which is why we rightly call Jesus the Son of God. This is the Jesus who was crucified for us, died, buried, and on the third day rose from the dead and sits at the right hand of God the Father.

    How can a man be God? Only by the divine persone also taking the human nature, as if dressing in a human body and soul; while, of course, remaining who he has always been; God, the only-begotten, eternal, divine Son of the Father. This dual nature is expressed by the term "God-man", or in other words: "The Word made flesh."

    But didn't Jesus himself say, "The Father is greater than I am?" Of course he did, because as a man, he was unquestionably lesser than the Father. The "I" from his lips could signify his divinity as well as his humanity. As God, he was equal to the Father, even one with him in unity; but as a man, he was clearly lesser than the Father.

    There would only be a contradiction if in Jesus the divine and human properties were fused into one nature, and thus mutually corrupted each other. But this is not the case. On the contrary: Jesus remained fully God and at the same time fully human. In his human nature, he was small and weak, but in his divine nature, he was infinite and omnipotent. In his human nature, he became like us in every respect, except for sin; in his divine nature, however, he is always above us. In his human nature, he was born, grew, learned, got tired, hungry, thirsty, cried, sweated, suffered, died, rose; in his divine nature, he was eternal changelessness. All this did not cause any contradiction or split in him, but rather, they complemented each other wonderfully.

    The JWs also refer to the fact that Jesus himself says that not even he, the Son of Man, knows the day of the final judgement, only the Father does. That's right: because in his human nature, he could indeed not know this. But he knew as God, and of course under the enlightening influence of his divinity he also knew as a man, but not based on his human knowledge.

    But how could Jesus "pray" to the Father, if he, in his essence, was identical with the Father? As a man, he could pray to himself as God; that is, his human soul could glorify the divinity that was closely connected with him but fundamentally different from him. There is no contradiction in this, but rather it is a natural consequence of the two natures.

    According to the JWs, the doctrine of the Trinity is nothing more than veiled polytheism. This claim, constantly repeated by the Jewish, Unitarian, and Muslim sides, must be deemed a total misconception. Christianity completely excludes polytheism with its basic teaching that the Trinity only applies to the divine persons, not to the one divine essence; in other words, there is only one God. The multiplicity of persons in no way contradicts the unity of essence, even though it is true that without revelation we would have no idea that "personal" and "essence" do not always coincide. From the fact that these two coincide in us humans, it does not follow that the two concepts are identical.

    But according to them, it is still a contradiction: God is both one and three. It would be a contradiction if we said: one essence and yet three essences; one person and yet three persons. But: one essence and three persons is no more a contradiction than if I say: three persons and one family, or: a hundred soldiers and one company. We do not identify the three with the one, but the three divine persons with the one God. No conceptual contradiction can be detected in this.

  • aqwsed12345
    aqwsed12345

    Earnest

    Regarding Jude 5, it should be noted that even the JWs teach that the "angel" who brought the Israelites into their promised land (and would not pardon transgression because God's name was in him Exodus 23:20–21) was "God's firstborn Son". They link the prince of the people of Israel mentioned in Daniel 10:21 to the firstborn called "the Son of God".

    Of course, he was not known by the name Jesus at that time, but why could Jude not call Him Jesus afterwards, by his Name according to the incarnation? The reading of "Jesus" in Jude 5 does not mean that it suggests that he was already known by the name Jesus already then, but rather simply identifies the "malak Yahweh" of the Old Testament with the later incarnate Son.

    Where 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 New Testament never calls Jesus an angel (cf. Hebrews 1:5), 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 verse 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 the voice of Michael is Jesus's voice, but rather that it's the voice of the archangel, accompanying the arrival of Jesus. 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.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit