I sincerely believe that Jesus is not Jehovah, but that he is Jehovah God's Son #1

TJ

>Hello Stephen,

Thanks for your comment to my post, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" pp.7-14., the first to this my Jesus is Jehovah! blog.

[Above: Early Christian ΙΧΘΥΣ (ICHTHYS) symbol, the Greek word for "fish" and an acrostic on the first letters of "Jesus Christ, God's Son, Saviour" in Greek. "The use of the Ichthys symbol by early Christians appears to date from the end of the 1st century AD" - Wikipedia. This is hard evidence (pun intended!) that early Christians, many of whom were Jewish, worshipped Jesus as their God and Saviour.]

Because your comment and my reply may be of wider interest to readers of my blog (also it is about more than one of my blog's posts), yet may otherwise be missed as a comment, I have decided to reply via a new post (in fact a two-part post because of its length), with the heading being what I take to be a major point in your comment, in your own words.

>... I am myself one of Jehovah's Witnesses, and I see that while you have many problems with our beliefs, you at least have the interest to investigate and discuss these differences, which is not all that common. :)

Thanks, and agreed that it is not common that Christians take the time and trouble to investigate JW beliefs and then discuss their differences with JWs. Partly this is because: 1) the average Christian has enough problems grappling with his/her own beliefs, without becoming an expert on other religions' (including cults') beliefs; 2) JWs are highly trained to conduct their particular arguments on doorsteps, whereas Christians are not; and 3) in my experience of over 40 years discussing with JWs who knock on my door (with one recent exception), little or nothing Christians say seems to make even the slightest difference to JWs.

>I was especially interested in the title of your blog, "Jesus is Jehovah".

I chose that name because it is positive (i.e. as a Christian I could post positive evidence and arguments supporting the deity of Christ) rather than only negative things against JW-ism.

Also, because it is a particularly sharp argument against JW-ism, since if Jesus is Jehovah, then not only would JW-ism be wrong, but then JWs would be unwittingly bearing witness to a counterfeit idol that the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society has constructed.

>... I sincerely believe that Jesus is not Jehovah, but that he is Jehovah God's Son.

This illustrates one of the problems of Christians discussing their differences with JWs; they use the same words, but with different meanings. What JWs mean by "God's Son" is that Jesus is a son of God in the sense that angels are sometimes called "sons of God" (e.g. Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7 KJV), i.e. Jesus is Michael the archangel:

"The foremost angel, both in power and authority, is the archangel, Jesus Christ, also called Michael. (1 Thessalonians 4:16; Jude 9) Under his authority are seraphs, cherubs, and angels." ("The Truth About Angels," The Watchtower, November 1, 1995).

But what Christians mean by "God's Son" is that Jesus is of the same nature as God, just as a human son is of the same nature as his father. That is, Jesus is the Word, who "in the beginning" already "was God" (Jn 1:1 NIV). The Gk. is kai theos en ho logos, "and god was the Word," as in JW's Kingdom Interlinear Translation - KIT). Not "a god" as in JW's New World Translation (NWT).

That is, Jesus is not merely a son of God, but "the Son of God" (Mt 26:63; Jn 1:34, 49; 11:27; 20:31; Acts 9:20; Heb 4:14; 6:6; 10:29; 1Jn 3:8; 4:15; 5:5,10,12,20; Rev 2:18. NWT [Gk. ho uios tou theos or ton uion tou theos, "the Son of the God" - KIT, capitals original]. Hereafter, unless otherwise indicated, all Greek quotes are from the KIT and all other Bible quotes are from the NWT.

Jesus' claim that "I am God's Son" (Jn 10:36 - Gk. Uios tou theou eimi, "Son of the God I am" - KIT, capitals original)" is explained by Him to be the equivalent of "I and the Father are one." (Jn 10:30 - Gk. ego kai ho pater en esmen, "I and the Father one(thing) we are") and the Jews recognised this as a claim by Jesus to be God, in the sense of Jehovah Himself, because they attempted to stone Him for blasphemy (Jn 10:31-32), which would only be lawful if it involved abuse of "Jehovah's name" (my emphasis):

Lev 24:16 So the abuser of Jehovah's name should be put to death without fail. The entire assembly should without fail pelt him with stones. The alien resident the same as the native should be put to death for his abusing the Name.

See also the `tagline' quote below by Walter Martin, that "Hebrew law on this point states five cases in which stoning was legal ... (2) Cursing (blasphemy), Leviticus 24:10-23 ... the only legal ground the Jews had for stoning Christ ... was the second violation, namely, blasphemy."

>So if you'd be so kind and patient with me, I'd like to explore one of your proofs from the diagram located in your first post to this blog.

I presume you mean my second post, "Jesus is Jehovah! (JiJ): Contents"because it has a diagram (wheel) "Jesus is Yahweh" (see below), whereas my first post, "Introduction to my Jesus is Jehovah! blog (JiJ)" does not.

>As a proof meant to support the conclusion that "Jesus is Yahweh", scriptures are provided in which Jesus is referred to with the title "Savior" and these are matched with scriptures in which Yahweh/Jehovah is referred to as "Savior".

The Old Testament compared with New Testament scriptures are (ASV):

SAVIOR: Ps 106:21; Hos 13:4; Isa 45:21; 43:3,11 & Acts 2:21; 4:12; Rom 10:9; Jude 25.

I will discuss all these verses in this first part of this two-part post.

The first, Ps 106:21:

They forgot God their Savior, The Doer of great things in Egypt,

establishes that God is Savior, which presumably is common ground between Christians and JWs.

>My question is, does the fact that both Jesus and Jehovah are each called "Savior" necessitate the conclusion that Jesus is Jehovah? Could one not, on this evidence, come to the valid conclusion that both Jesus and Jehovah are Saviors? I.e. Jesus is a Savior, Jehovah is a Savior, but Jesus is not Jehovah?

No, because both Jehovah in the Old Testament and Jesus in the New Testament claim (or it is claimed of each) to be the only Savior, in the same sense. In the second of those verses, Hos 13:4, Jehovah says, in that when He brought Israel out of Egypt, there was "no God" and but Him and "no saviour":

"But I am Jehovah your God from the land of Egypt, and there was no God except me that you used to know; and there was no savior but I."

My Interlinear Bible translates this verse as, "there is no saviour besides Me" (my emphasis):

"Yet I am Jehovah, your God from the land of Egypt; and you shall know no other gods than Me, for there is no saviour besides Me."

In Isa 45:21b, Jehovah, in the form of a rhetorical question, states that "besides" him "there is no other God" and as "a Savior, there" is "none excepting" Him (my emphasis):

"Is it not I, Jehovah, besides whom there is no other God; a righteous God and a Savior, there being none excepting me?" .

The Interlinear Bible renders this:

"Is it not I, Jehovah? And there is no God other than me, a just God and a Saviour; there is none except Me." (italics original)

In Isa 43:11, Jehovah states that, "besides me there is no saviour" (my emphasis):

"I-I am Jehovah, and besides me there is no savior."

Yet in Acts 4:12, the Apostle Peter, preaching to in Jerusalem to Jewish religious leaders (who therefore already believed in Jehovah), stated of "Jesus Christ" (Acts 4:10) that, "in none other is there salvation" and "neither is there any other name" (which includes the name "Jehovah") "under heaven ... wherein we must be saved." (my emphasis):

"And in none other is there salvation: for neither is there any other name under heaven, that is given among men, wherein we must be saved."

Earlier in Acts 2:21, Peter had preached in Jerusalem to the Jewish public (again who therefore already believed in Jehovah), and quoted Joel 2:32:

"And everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah [Kuriou] will be saved."

Note that in the Gk. of Acts 2:21, it does not have "Jehovah," even though there are "Greek transliterations of the name" (Heb. YHWH), "the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures do not contain the divine name" ("Aid to Bible Understanding" - see `tagline' quote). As in the KIT the Gk. translated literally into English reads:

"And it will be everyone who if ever should call upon the name of Lord he will be saved."

And in the context, at the end of the same Peter's speech, "the Lord" is revealed to be "Christ, this Jesus":

Acts 2:36. Therefore let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord [Kurion] and Christ, this Jesus whom YOU impaled."

Paul also quoted from Joel 2:32 in Rom 10:13, and although the NWT translated Gk. Kuriou as "Jehovah" it is clear in the context of Rom 10:9-13, that the "Lord" is actually "Jesus" in Rom 10:9:

"For if you publicly declare that `word in your own mouth,' that Jesus is Lord [Kurios ], and exercise faith in your heart that God raised him up from the dead, you will be saved. For with the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation. For the Scripture says: `None that rests his faith on him will be disappointed.' For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek, for there is the same Lord over all, who is rich to all those calling upon him. For `everyone who calls on the name of Jehovah [Gk. Kuriou - KIT] will be saved.'"

Jude 25 teaches that the "only God" is "our Savior" but "through Jesus Christ our Lord [Kuriou]":

"to [the] only God our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, might and authority for all past eternity and now and into all eternity. Amen."

Yet in Jude, a short letter of only 25 verses, the same Gk. root word for "Lord," [Kurios and its cognates], is translated by the NWT as "Lord Jesus Christ" or "Jesus Christ our Lord" (vs. 4, 17, 21, 25) , 25), and "Jehovah" (vs. 5, 9, 14):

Jude 4. My reason is that certain men have slipped in who have long ago been appointed by the Scriptures to this judgment, ungodly men, turning the undeserved kindness of our God into an excuse for loose conduct and proving false to our only Owner and Lord [Kurion], Jesus Christ.
Jude 5. I desire to remind YOU, despite YOUR knowing all things once for all time, that Jehovah [Kurios], although he saved a people out of the land of Egypt, afterwards destroyed those not showing faith.
Jude 9. But when Mi´cha•el the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses' body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: "May Jehovah [Kurios] rebuke you."
Jude 14. Yes, the seventh one [in line] from Adam, E´noch, prophesied also regarding them, when he said: "Look! Jehovah [Kurios] came with his holy myriads,
Jude 17. As for YOU, beloved ones, call to mind the sayings that have been previously spoken by the apostles of our Lord [Kuriou] Jesus Christ,
Jude 21. keep yourselves in God's love, while YOU are waiting for the mercy of our Lord [Kuriou] Jesus Christ with everlasting life in view.
Jude 25. to [the] only God our Savior through Jesus Christ our Lord [Kuriou] be glory, majesty, might and authority for all past eternity and now and into all eternity. Amen.

Note in the first of the above (v.4) that Jude called Jesus "our only Owner and Lord" (Gk. ton monon despoten kai kurion). That means that everywhere that Kurios and its cognates appeared in Jude's letter, including where the NWT translated as "Jehovah" that same Gk. word for "Lord," Jude intended Jesus to be understood, i.e. to Jude the "Lord Jesus Christ" is Jehovah Jesus Christ!

Note also the `tagline' quotes below that, instead of Kurios, "Lord" in v.5 above, in fact Iesous, "Jesus" is "the best attested reading among Greek and versional witnesses ... and some significant church fathers." That is, v.5 should read, as per the NIV margin:

Jude 5 NIV mgn. Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that Jesus delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. (my emphasis)

This is further proof that the New Testament Christians understood Jesus to be the incarnated Jehovah of the Old Testament!

See also `tagline' quote by Prof. Larry Hurtado, that the early Christian apologist, Justin Martyr (AD 100–165) argued that "Old Testament ... manifestations of God ... are ... as manifestations of the `preincarnate' Son of God." But "Justin did not originate the basic idea that the preincarnate Jesus could be found active in certain Old Testament passages," he "was ... building upon a line of christological argument already available," including in "New Testament references"!

Continued in part #2. See also `tagline' quotes below (emphases in italics are original, bold emphases are mine).

Stephen E. Jones.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & TheShroudofTurin

---

"John 8:58, `Jesus said unto them ... Before Abraham was [born], I am' (KJV). In comparing this with the Septuagint translation of Exodus 3:14 and Isaiah 43:10-13, we find that the translation is identical. In Exodus 3:14, Jehovah, speaking to Moses, said, `I AM,' which is synonymous with God. Jesus literally said to them, `I AM Jehovah' (I AM), and it is clear that they understood Him to mean just that; for they attempted, as the next verse reveals, to stone Him. Hebrew law on this point states five cases in which stoning was legal, and bear in mind that the Jews were legalists. Those cases were: (1) Having a familiar spirit, Leviticus 20:27; (2) Cursing (blasphemy), Leviticus 24:10-23; (3) False prophets who lead to idolatry, Deuteronomy 13:5-10; (4) Stubborn son, Deuteronomy 21:18-21; and (5) Adultery and rape, Deuteronomy 22:21-24 and Leviticus 20:10. Now, the only legal ground the Jews had for stoning Christ (and actually they had none at all) was the second violation, namely, blasphemy." (Martin, W.R. & Klann, N., "Jehovah of the Watchtower," [1953], Bethany House Publishers: Bloomington MN, Reprinted, 1981, p.52)

"Greek transliterations of the name by early Christian writers point in a somewhat similar direction with spellings such as Iabe' and Iaoue', which, as pronounced in Greek, resemble Yahweh. ... In view of this evidence, it seems most unusual to find that the extant manuscript copies of the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures do not contain the divine name in its full form. The name therefore is also absent from most translations of the so-called `New Testament.'" ("Aid to Bible Understanding," [1969], Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, Second edition, 1971, pp.885-886).

"The Epistle of Jude ... In this short letter of only twenty-five verses Jude refers to Jesus no less than six times by name and always in conjunction with one or more additional titles: `Jesus Christ' (vs 1 [twice]), `our Lord Jesus Christ' (vss 17, 21), `Jesus Christ, our Lord' (vs 25), and `our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ' (vs 4). All ascribe to Jesus both the messianic investiture and Lordship, while the contexts in which they occur suggest that for Jude Christ's was a station not below the Father himself insofar as divine status is concerned. For if it is in God the Father that the called are loved, it is in or for Jesus Christ that they are kept (vs 1). If they are to keep themselves in the Father's love, they are no less to wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to grant them eternal salvation (vs 21). If it is the Father who is to be glorified for the final salvation of the called, it is through Jesus Christ, Our Lord, that such praise is to be mediated (vs 25). If it is the Father who is the `only God' (vs 25), it is Jesus Christ who is `our only Master and Lord' (... ton monon despoten kai kurion) (vs 4). And if Jude sees himself as a servant, it is as a servant of Jesus Christ (vs 1) precisely because it is Jesus Christ who is `our only Master and Lord' (vs 4)." (Reymond, 2003, R.L., "Jesus, Divine Messiah: The New Testament and Old Testament Witness," Mentor: Fearn UK, 2003, pp.482-483).

"There is some debate, it must be admitted, as to whether the full title in verse 4 refers only to Christ ('our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ') or to both the Father ('the only Master') and to Jesus ('our Lord Jesus Christ'). Many commentators argue that the latter is the more likely interpretation, but mainly on apriori theological grounds. In my opinion, two factors militate against this view in favor of the former interpretation. First, both nouns ('Master' and `Lord') stand under the regimen of the single article before `Master,' suggesting that they are to be construed together as characterizations of the same person. While it is certainly true that ... kurios `Lord' ... does not require the article, it is also true that had Jude intended to refer both to God the Father and to Jesus, he could have made that intention explicit either by placing `our Lord' after `Jesus Christ' as he does in verse 25, or by employing a second article before `our Lord Jesus Christ' as he does in the other two places where he refers singly to Jesus by that title (vss 17, 21). Second, 2 Peter 2:1, with a similar statement, evidently refers to Jesus as the Master. These two factors place it beyond all reasonable doubt that Jude intended to describe Jesus as both our Master and our Lord. Since it is doubtful that the two titles are a pleonasm or tautology, what did Jude intend to imply by the former title? In addition to the fact that Jesus is `our Lord,' Jude by this title highlights the fact that Jesus is the `Owner' of Christians by virtue of his messianic work with the right that inheres in such ownership to command and to expect his followers' immediate and humble response." (Reymond, 2003, p.483).

"But there is still more that Jude implies about Jesus. For in addition to the six direct references to Jesus by name, there is sound reason to think that he may well have had Jesus in mind when he refers to `the Lord' in verses 5 and 14. Consider the latter context first. Can there really be any doubt, regardless of who the referent is in 1 Enoch 1:49, that Jude intended to refer to Jesus in verse 14 when he wrote: `Behold, the Lord will come ... elthen, an aorist with prophetic (future) intention] with his myriad holy ones' (see Matt 16:27; 25:31; Mark 8:38; Luke 9:26; 1 Thes 3:13; 2 Thes 1:7-10)? In light of consentient Christian testimony, no other referent will suffice. But then, this being so, Jude here ascribes the divine prerogative of eschatological judgment to Jesus." (Reymond, 2003, pp.483-484).

"In the former verse (vs 5), apart from the fact that `Jesus' may well be the original reading instead of `Lord,' even with the reading `the Lord,' there is every reason to believe that Jesus may still have been Jude's intended referent. Consider the following facts. First, there is no question that Jude employed `Lord' to refer to Jesus four times (vss 4, 17, 21, 25). Second, we have just seen that the almost certain referent of `Lord' in verse 14 is Jesus. And third, this occurrence of `Lord' in verse 5 comes hard on the heels of Jude's certain reference to Jesus in the immediately preceding verse as `our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.' So it is not only possible but also virtually certain that it is to Jesus, in his preincarnate state as the Yahweh of the Old Testament, that he ascribes, first, the deliverance of Israel from Egypt and then the destruction of those within the nation who rebelled; second, the judgment of the angels at the time of their primeval fall; and third, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. And if all this is true, Jude was clearly thinking of Jesus Christ in terms that encompass the Old Testament Deity. But however one interprets this last verse, it is apparent from the others that, for Jude, Christ was the sovereign Master and Lord of men, who at his coming will exercise the prerogative to dispense eschatological salvation and judgment as the Savior and Judge of men. There can be no doubt, in light of these facts, that for him Christ was divine." (Reymond, 2003, p.484).

"'In the former verse (vs 5), apart from the fact that `Jesus' may well be the original reading instead of `Lord,' ... Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, 725-26, explains with respect to the reading ... ho kurios, in the UBS Greek New Testament that `a majority of the Committee was of the opinion that the reading ... Iesous ... was difficult to the point of impossibility, and explained its origin in terms of transcriptional oversight.' But Metzger himself and Allen Wikgren affirm that `Critical principles seem to require the adoption of ... Iesous, which admittedly is the best attested reading among Greek and versional witnesses [e.g., A, B, 33, Vulgate, and some significant church fathers]. Struck by the strange and unparalleled mention of Jesus in a statement about the redemption out of Egypt (yet compare Paul's reference to ... Christos, in 1 Cor 10.4) copyists would have substituted ... [ho] kurios or ... eo theos.' In short, Iesous, is both the best supported reading textually and undoubtedly the hardest of the variant readings-canons of criticism which, when both are true of a given reading, normally carry the field." (Reymond, 2003, pp.484-485).

"The third approach to finding (and demonstrating) Jesus in the Old Testament is just as bold, and indeed, may well appear still more bizarre to many moderns. The focus here is on a number of Old Testament passages that narrate manifestations of God (the technical term for such a scene is `theophany'). In this approach these events are presented as manifestations of the `preincarnate' Son of God. Yet again, Justin gives us the most examples from our period of concern. In Dialogue 61.1 Justin makes the general claim to his Jewish dialogue partners that Jesus can be identified in terms of a number of Old Testament manifestations of God. That is, he asserts that `in general the Old Testament theophanies were appearances of the Son, not the Father.' `I shall give to you testimony from the scriptures, my friends, that before all created things God begat from himself a Beginning [arche], a certain rational power [dynamin logiken], who is also called by the Holy Spirit `the Glory of the Lord,' and sometimes `Son,' and `Wisdom,' and `Angel,' and `God,' and `Lord,' and `Word'; and he once called himself `Captain' [archistrategon] when he appeared in the form of a man to Joshua the son of Nun ... The Old Testament allusions here are: `Beginning' (Gen. 1:1, `in/by the beginning' taken as a reference to the Son as the divine agent of creation); `Glory of the Lord' (e.g., Exod. 16:7; etc.); `Son' (e.g., Ps. 2:7); `Wisdom' (Prov. 8:22-36; Ps. 104:24 [103:24 LXX]); `Angel [of the Lord]' (e.g., Gen. 31:11-13); `God' (e.g., Gen. 32:28-30); `Lord' (e.g., Gen. 18:1; 28:13); `Word' (Ps. 33:6 [32:6 LXX]); `Chief Officer' (Josh. 5:14). By `rational power' Justin refers to this divine figure's chief function as expression of the will/mind of God, which is also, of course, conveyed particularly in the epithets `Word' and `Wisdom.'" (Hurtado, L.W. , 2005, "Lord Jesus Christ: Devotion to Jesus in Earliest Christianity," Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, pp.574-575).

"However, in Justin (and the Christian tradition he reflects) it is not simply or primarily an academic debate over what one might make of biblical texts. Instead they explore certain theophanic accounts to confirm and celebrate Jesus' divine status for themselves, and to persuade others to embrace him as divine. For the early Christian handling of these Old Testament texts that Justin exemplifies, the prior and essential basis is the belief that the historic Jesus was the incarnate form of the preexistent and divine Son/Word of God, through and with whom God created all things. This belief certainly goes back early into first-century Christianity, as attested by such passages as 1 Corinthians 8:4-6, Philippians 2:6-8, Colossians 1:15-17, Hebrews 1:1-3, and John 1:1-2 [NIV]. Given this belief, it was not so strange for early Christians such as Justin to look for references to the preincarnate Jesus/Son/Word in their Scriptures." (Hurtado, 2005, p.576).

"In fact, the conviction that one could find Old Testament passages in which the preincarnate Jesus was manifested is reflected in first-century Christian texts. Most obviously, of course, the New Testament references to Jesus as the one through whom God created all things (1 Cor. 8:4-6; John 1:1-2; Col. 1:15-17) all reflect such a reading of Old Testament statements about the creation of the world. Furthermore, Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 10:4 [NIV] that the rock from which Israel drank in their wilderness trek `was Christ' must surely be taken as asserting that in his preincarnate mode Jesus was the divine figure who engaged Israel in the Exodus narrative. Also, whether the original reading in Jude 5 [NIV] referred to `Jesus' or `the Lord,' it is a good bet that this verse likewise portrays the preincarnate Jesus rescuing Israel from Egypt. Further, as we noted in an earlier chapter, John 12:41 [NIV] asserts that the divine figure seen by the prophet in Isaiah 6:1 [NIV] was `the Lord' Jesus. These references to passages in Exodus and Isaiah exhibit first-century christological interpretations of Old Testament theophanic passages." (Hurtado, 2005, pp.576-577).

"So Justin did not originate the basic idea that the preincarnate Jesus could be found active in certain Old Testament passages. ... Justin was essentially building upon a line of christological argument already available. He reflects an approach to the Old Testament that had been a feature of devotion to Jesus during the first decades of the Christian movement. In turn, his programmatic finding of the preincarnate Jesus in Old Testament passages is probably one of the traditions that helped shape Irenaeus's idea that Jesus is the full and final manifestation of the divine Logos who has been active throughout human history." (Hurtado, 2005, p.577).

"What Does the Bible Really Teach?" pp.7-14

Last Monday I commenced a home study with the JW elder named Charlie, who I mentioned in my introductory post. About a month ago I had invited Charlie to take

[Left: "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, 2005]

me through the JWs home study for prospective new members but I thought he had refused.

In the meantime my Christian mother-in-law had given me a copy of "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" which a JW at her door had given her. I assumed this must be the very book that JWs use in their home studied for prospective new members.

So when Charlie returned earlier this month and said he would start meeting with me every Monday, I prepared for a discussion with him about one of the Appendices, "Who Is Michael the Archangel?" at pages 218-219 of the book.

However, Charlie wanted to work though the book from the beginning, and I agreed. But we only got as far as the first page of chapter 1, "What Is the Truth About God?" That is, when we got to:

"Children are not the only ones who ask questions. As we grow up, we keep asking. We do this in order to find our way, to learn of dangers that we need to avoid, or to satisfy our curiosity. But many people seem to stop asking questions, especially the most important ones. At least, they stop searching for the answers. ... Why is it often good to ask questions? ... Why do many stop trying to find answers to the questions that matter most?" (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, 2005, p.8).

I asked Charlie whether the Watchtower really encouraged asking questions about the Watchtower and its doctrines? I am not going to give Charlie's answers, to preserve his confidentiality, so all I will give here are my questions (in bold with the page number first).

I am posting these here so that they may be of help to either: a) other Christians ministering to JWs; b) prospective new JWs studying this book; or c) JWs who are having doubts about Watchtower doctrines. There are other online critiques of this book, which I have not relied upon and don't necessarily endorse, including: Catholic Ex-Jehovah’s Witnesses and Jehovah's-Witness discussion forum.

For our next meeting this coming Monday, I am going to ask Charlie the following questions (which at first will backtrack slightly):

P7a. Are we going to be "learning what the Bible really teaches" or just what the Watchtower organization says the Bible teaches?

"The fact that you are reading this book shows that you would like to find out what the Bible teaches. This book will help you. Notice that the paragraphs have corresponding questions at the bottom of the page. Millions have enjoyed using the question-and-answer method when discussing the Bible with Jehovah's Witnesses. We hope you will too. May you have God's blessing as you now enjoy the thrilling and satisfying experience of learning what the Bible really teaches!" (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, 2005, p.7).

If someone with no previous Bible knowledge was shipwrecked on a desert island with just the Bible, would they just by reading the Bible discover JW's distinctive teachings?

P7b. Does the Watchtower organization really encourage its members to undertake a program of daily Bible reading" such that they "read the entire Bible in a year"?

"GET TO KNOW YOUR BIBLE ... You will quickly become familiar with the Bible by looking up the scriptures cited in this publication. Also, why not start a program of daily Bible reading? By reading three to five chapters a day, you can read the entire Bible in a year." (WB&TS, 2005, p.7. Emphasis original).

Why did The Watchtower of August 15, 1981, attack those JW's who "read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home"?:

"From time to time, there have arisen from among the ranks of Jehovah's people those who ... say that it is sufficient to read the Bible exclusively, either alone or in small groups at home. But, strangely, through such `Bible reading,' they have reverted right back to the apostate doctrines that commentaries by Christendom's clergy were teaching 100 years ago ...." (The Watchtower, August 15, 1981, pp.28-29).

If by reading "the Bible exclusively" one would arrive at the "doctrines that ... Christendom's clergy were teaching" does not this show that JW doctrines are not based on "the Bible exclusively" but Christianity's doctrines are?

P8. Does the Watchtower organization really encourage its members to not "stop asking questions" about the Watchtower and its doctrines? (already asked-see above).

P12. Why does the Watchtower make so much of the name "Jehovah" when it does not appear in the original Hebrew and in fact was first used by a Roman Catholic monk in AD1270? (see `tagline': "Aid", p.884):

"If you want someone to get to know you, what might you do? Would you not tell the person your name? Does God have a name? Many religions answer that his name is `God' or `Lord,' but those are not personal names. They are titles, just as `king' and `president' are titles. The Bible teaches that God has many titles. `God' and `Lord' are among them. However, the Bible also teaches that God has a personal name: Jehovah. Psalm 83:18 says: `You, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth.'" (WB&TS, 2005, pp.12-13. Emphasis original).

Also the name "Jehovah's Witnesses" was not used until it was invented by `Judge' Rutherford in 1931, i.e. 52 years after Charles Taze Russell founded the Watchtower Society in 1879. (see `tagline': "JWs Proclaimers").

P 13. Is it not misleading to claim that "God's name" (YHWH) "appears thousands of times in ancient Bible manuscripts" when that is only in Hebrew Old Testament manuscripts but not once is YHWH transliterated into Greek in any New Testament manuscript? (see `taglines': "Aid", p.886; Rhodes; Martin):

"The truth is that God's name appears thousands of times in ancient Bible manuscripts. So Jehovah wants you to know his name and to use it. In a sense, he is using the Bible to introduce himself to you." (WB&TS, 2005, pp.13-14. Emphasis original).

P14. If "Jehovah wants" us "to know his name and to use it" why does the New Testament emphasise knowing and using Jesus' name? (see `also tagline': Reed):

Name of Jesus: God's command is to have faith in (1Jn 3:23); believers have life in (Jn 20:31); apostles called on Jews (who already believed in Jehovah) to repent and be baptized in (Acts 2:38; 8:16; 10:48); apostles spoke and taught in (Acts 4:18; 5:40); evangelists preached in (Acts 8:12; 9:27); Christians justified in (1Cor 6:11); Christians sanctified in (1Cor 6:11); apostles healed sick in (Acts 3:6,16; 4:10), performed miraculous signs and wonders through (Acts 4:30), demons cast out by (Acts 16:18); opposition to (Acts 26:9); Christians risked their lives for (Acts 15:26; 19:13); died for (Acts 21:13); churches assembled in (1Cor 5:4); Christians to call upon (1Cor 1:2); thanks to be given in (Eph 5:20); every knee should bow at (Php 2:10); everything to be done in (Col 3:17); to be glorified (2Th 1:12); Christians appealed to in (1Cor 1:10), Christians commanded in (2Th3:6).

We probably won't get as far as this, and this post is getting too long, so this will be continued in a future post: "What Does the Bible Really Teach?" pp.15-17.

Stephen E. Jones.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & TheShroudofTurin

---

The pronunciations `Jehovah' and `Yahweh' By combining the vowel signs of 'Adhonay' and 'Elohim' with the four consonants of the Tetragrammaton the pronunciations Yehowah' and Yehowih' were formed. The first of these provided the basis for the Latinized form `Jehova(h);' The first recorded use of this form dates from the thirteenth century. C.E. Raymundus Martini, a Spanish monk of the Dominican Order, used it in his book Pugeo Fidei of the year 1270." (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, "Aid to Bible Understanding," [1969], Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn NY, Second edition, 1971, p.884. Emphasis original).

"A milestone, though, was reached at a convention held in Columbus, Ohio, in 1931. On Sunday, July 26, at noon, Brother Rutherford delivered the public discourse `The Kingdom, the Hope of the World,' which was broadcast over a vast radio hookup, with more than 300 additional stations later rebroadcasting the message. At the end of the discourse, Brother Rutherford served notice on Christendom by reading a stinging resolution entitled `Warning From Jehovah,' which was addressed `To the Rulers and to the People.' To his invitation that they adopt the resolution, the entire visible audience stood and shouted, `Aye!' Telegrams later received indicated that many of those listening on the radio likewise raised their voices in agreement. From one o'clock, when the public discourse was finished, until four o'clock, when Brother Rutherford reentered the auditorium, the atmosphere was charged with excitement. Brother Rutherford had specially requested that everyone who was really interested in the noonday warning to Christendom be in his seat at four o'clock. Promptly at four, Brother Rutherford began by stating that he regarded what he was about to say as of vital importance to everyone who could hear his voice. His listeners were keenly interested. During his discourse he presented another resolution, this one entitled `A New Name,' which was climaxed by the declaration: `We desire to be known as and called by the name, to wit, Jehovah's witnesses. `The thrilled convent' again jumped to their feet with the ringing shout `Aye!' They would henceforth be known as Jehovah's Witnesses!" (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, "Jehovah's Witnesses, Proclaimers of God's Kingdom," Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Brooklyn NY, 1993, pp.79,82. Emphasis original).

"In view of this evidence, it seems most unusual to find that the extant manuscript copies of the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures do not contain the divine name in its full form. The name therefore is also absent from most translations of the so-called `New Testament.'" ("Aid to Bible Understanding," 1971, p.886).

"Jehovah's Witnesses are told through Watchtower publications that God's true name is Jehovah. They are taught that superstitious Jewish scribes long ago removed this sacred name from the Bible. But there is no need to worry, the Watchtower Society says! The Society's New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures has `faithfully' restored the divine name in the Old Testament where the Hebrew consonants YHWH appear. [Bodine, M., "Bible Answer Man," Christian Research Newsletter, May/June 1992, p.3] Moreover, the name `Jehovah' has been inserted in the New Testament by the Watchtower New World Bible Translation Committee in verses where the text is believed to refer to the Father. [Ibid] They have taken the liberty to do this despite the fact that it blatantly goes against the thousands of Greek manuscripts of the New Testament that we have-some of which date from the second century. (The New Testament always uses the words `Lord' [Greek: kurios] and `God' [Greek: theos], never `Jehovah'- even in quotations from the Old Testament. [Bowman, R.M., "Understanding Jehovah's Witnesses," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1991, p.114])" (Rhodes, R., 1993, "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses," Harvest House: Eugene OR, Reprinted, 2006, p.49. Emphasis original).

"The first major error we shall discuss is that Jehovah's Witnesses have restored the divine name `Jehovah' to the text of the New Testament. But let us observe this pretext as they stated it in their own words. `The evidence is, therefore, that the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures has been tampered with, the same as the text of the LXX [The Septuagint ... a Greek translation of the Old Testament] has been. And, at least from the third century A.D. onward, the divine name in tetragrammaton [The Hebrew consonants YHWH] form has been eliminated from the text by copyists.... In place of it they substituted the words kyrios (usually translated `the Lord') and theos, meaning `God' ` (NWT, 1950, p.18). The `evidence' that the Witnesses refer to is a recently discovered papyrus roll of the LXX which contains the second half of the book of Deuteronomy and which does have the tetragrammaton throughout. Further than this, the Witnesses refer to Aquila (A.D. 128) and Origen who both utilized the tetragrammaton in their respective Version and Hexapla. Jerome in the fourth century also mentioned the tetragrammaton as appearing in certain Greek volumes even in his day. On the basis of this small collection of fragmentary evidence, Jehovah's Witnesses conclude their argument: `It proves that the original LXX did contain the divine name wherever it occurred in the Hebrew original. Considering it a sacrilege to use some substitute such as kyrios or theos, the scribes inserted the tetragrammaton at its proper place in the Greek version text' (NWT, p. 12). The whole case the Witnesses try to prove is that the original LXX and the New Testament autographs all used the tetragrammaton (NWT, 1950, p. 18) but owing to `tampering,' all these were changed; hence their responsibility to restore the divine name. Such is the argument, and a seemingly plausible one, to those not familiar with the history of manuscripts and the Witnesses' subtle use of terms." (Martin, W.R. & Klann, N., 1953, "Jehovah of the Watchtower," Bethany House Publishers: Bloomington MN, Reprinted, 1981, pp.131-132. Emphasis original).

"To explain this error of translation is an elementary task. It can be shown from literally thousands of copies of the Greek New Testament that not once does the tetragrammaton appear, not even in Matthew, possibly written in Hebrew or Aramaic originally, and therefore more prone than all the rest to have traces of the divine name in it-yet it does not! Beyond this, the roll of papyrus (LXX), which contains the latter part of Deuteronomy and the divine name only proves that one copy did have the divine name (YHWH) , whereas all other existing copies use kyrios and theos, which the Witnesses claim are `substitutes.' The testimonies of Aquila, Origen, and Jerome, in turn, only show that sometimes the divine name was used, but the general truth, upheld by all scholars, is that the Septuagint, with minor exceptions, always uses kyrios and theos in place of the tetragrammaton, and the New Testament never uses it at all. Relative to the nineteen `sources' the Watchtower uses (NWT, pp. 30-33) for restoring the tetragrammaton to the New Testament, it should be noted that they are all translations from Greek (which uses kyrios and theos, not the tetragrammaton) back into Hebrew, the earliest of which is A.D. 1385, and therefore they are of no value as evidence." (Martin & Klann, 1953, p.132. Emphasis original).

"Jehovah's Witnesses misuse the name Jehovah ... They teach that it `is wrong to fail to use that name.' (You Can Live Forever in Paradise on Earth, page 44) For them it is one of the identifying marks of the true religion, so that any church or denomination that does not feature the name continually in its worship services and in its literature is automatically part of Satan's empire of false religion. The most obvious refutation for this is that such a standard would condemn Peter, Paul, John, and the other New Testament writers and the first century churches associated with them. There is no evidence that the apostles or the early Christians-particularly the Greek-speaking converts who quickly made up the majority of the early Church-attached any such special significance to the use of this name. Rather, congregations of believers were `assembled in the name of our Lord Jesus.' (1 Corinthians 5:4 NIV) In seasons of persecution Christians were `insulted because of the name of Christ.' (1 Peter 4:14) The apostles taught `in the name of Jesus' and proclaimed that `there is no other name under heaven given to men by which we must be saved.' (Acts 4:12, 18 NIV)" (Reed, D.A., 1996, "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses: Subject by Subject," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Second printing, 1998, pp.143-144. Emphasis original)

Is Jesus Christ Michael the archangel? #2

This is part #2 of my critique of the Watchtower Bible Tract Society's claim that Jesus Christ is actually Michael the archangel,

[Right: "Archangel Michael," by Raphael (1483-1520), Wilson's Almanac]

as stated in the Appendix, "Who Is Michael the Archangel?," at pages 218-219 of the Society's 2005 home Bible study booklet, "What Does the Bible Really Teach?"

I have quoted the entire Appendix in part #1 of this two-part post, so all I will quote here is each sentence of paragraphs two and three, preceded by the last sentence of paragraph one.

Archangel. God's Word refers to Michael `the archangel.' (Jude 9) This term means `chief angel.' Indeed! This Greek word arche can mean first in position as well as first in time (see `tagline' quote below). It is the same word translated "beginning" in Rev 3:14 (New World Translation) which the Society insists must be interpreted as "beginning of the creation of God" in the sense of time, thus making Christ a created being, whereas it could equally mean in the sense of position, i.e. "chief," , as in the NIV, "ruler of God's creation" (see `tagline' quote below).

Notice that Michael is called the archangel. This is misleading. There is no emphasis on "the" in the original Greek. The term "Michael the archangel" is presumably Michael's name. What else could Michael be called, if Jude needs to distinguish which "Michael" he is referring to (there are at least 10 other "Michael's" in the Bible.

This suggests that there is only one such angel. No, because as we saw in part #1, Michael is only "one of the foremost princes" (Dan 10:13 NWT), i.e. he is one among others of the same rank. The Watchtower must know this (because it has been teaching that Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel for at least 50 years (in its book, "Your Will Be Done on Earth," 1958-see tagline), and Dan 10:13 is one of only five verses in the entire Bible that mention Michael the archangel. So the Watchtower is here either being deliberately dishonest, or it is so self-deceived that it cannot even see what its own translation plainly says!

In fact, the term `archangel' occurs in the Bible only in the singular, never in the plural. Since the term "archangel" only appears twice in the Bible, in Jude 9 and 1Th 4:16, and in the former it is only talking about one archangel, Michael, no valid conclusion can be inferred from this. Especially since (Dan 10:13 NWT) says that Michael was "one of the foremost princes" and the Jews in the 1st century believed that there were "seven archangels":

"According to Enoch, xxi., as the text has now been critically fixed (see Charles, `Book of Enoch,' p. 357), there are seven archangels ('irin we-kaddishin, `holy ones who watch'): (1) Uriel ['God is Light'; compare II Esd. iv. 1], set over the world's luminaries and over Sheol [compare Enoch, xxi. 5, xxvii. 2, xxxiii. 3, 4]; (2) Raphael, set over the spirits of men [compare Enoch, x. 4, where he is told to bind Azazel and to heal the earth with Tobit-iii. 17]; (3) Raguel [Ra'uel, `the terrifier'], who chastiseth the world of the luminaries; (4) Michael, set over the best part of mankind, over the people of Israel; (5) Sariel [Æth., Sarakiel, Suriel, `God turneth'?], set over the spirits who seduce the spirits to sin; (6) Gabriel, set over paradise, the serpents [seraphim?], and the cherubim; (7) Jerahmeel ['God is merciful'], whom God set over the resurrection [compare II Esd. iv. 36; Syriac Apoc. Baruch, lv. 3; Steindorf, `Elias Apoc.' p. 152]." ("Angelology: A Heavenly Hierarchy," Jewish Encyclopedia.com)

But again the Watchtower must know this (see above on "dishonest" or "self-deceived").

Moreover, Jesus is linked with the office of archangel. Regarding the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, l Thessalonians 4:16 states: `The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice.' Yes, "with an archangel's voice," i.e. Christ will return "with his angels" (Mt 16:27; Mk 8:38; 2Th 1:7 NWT) and so the "archangel's voice" would be that of one of those angels who will accompany Jesus, and may well be Michael. But note also that Paul in 1Th 4:16 NWT says "an archangel" (as in NKJV) not "the archangel" (as the NIV wrongly translates), so the"an archangel's voice" is not necessarily Michael's. Also, Paul's "an archangel" implies that there is more than one archangel, otherwise he would have written "the archangel" if Paul had thought there was only one archangel.

Thus the voice of Jesus is described as being that of an archangel. This is false. The Lord's "commanding call" and the "archangel's voice" are two separate things. This is clearer when we add back what the Watchtower omitted , "and with God's trumpet":

1Th 4:16 NWT. because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet,

Then, as ex-JW elder David Reed points out (see `tagline'), "if using an archangel's voice makes the Lord an archangel, then having God's trumpet makes him God"!

This scripture therefore suggests that Jesus himself is the archangel Michael. This is false. All the above Scriptures refute the Watchtower theory that "Jesus himself is the archangel Michael." Indeed, the very fact that the Watchtower has to use such weak terms as "suggest" and "indicates" (part #1) shows that neither this nor any "scripture suggests that Jesus himself is the archangel Michael"!

Army Leader. The Bible states that `Michael and his angels battled with the dragon ... and its angels.' (Revelation 12:7) Thus, Michael is the Leader of an army of faithful angels. This too is false. Nowhere does the Bible say that "Michael is the Leader of an army of ... angels" including this verse:

Rev 12:7 NWT. And war broke out in heaven: Mi·cha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled

The flexibility of Watchtower teaching on this is evident in that it previously interpreted "Revelation 12:7 to mean ...that Michael is `the Pope' and his angels are `the Bishops' (p. 188)." (Reed, 1993, p.58. See `tagline' quote).

Revelation also describes Jesus as the Leader of an army of faithful angels. (Revelation 19:14-16) This is false also. Those verses actually say that Jesus is the leader of "the armies that were in heaven":

Rev 19:13-14 NWT. and he is arrayed with an outer garment sprinkled with blood, and the name he is called is The Word of God. Also, the armies that were in heaven were following him on white horses, and they were clothed in white, clean, fine linen.

And the apostle Paul specifically mentions `the Lord Jesus' and `his powerful angels.' (2 Thessalonians 1:7; Matthew 16:27; 24:31; 1 Peter 3: 22) Here is what these verses say:

2Th 1:7 NWT. but, to YOU who suffer tribulation, relief along with us at the revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels

Mt 16:27 NWT. For the Son of man is destined to come in the glory of his Father with his angels, and then he will recompense each one according to his behavior.

Mt 24:31 NWT. And he will send forth his angels with a great trumpet sound, and they will gather his chosen ones together from the four winds, from one extremity of the heavens to their other extremity.

1Pet 3: 22 NWT. He is at God's right hand, for he went his way to heaven; and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him.

Note that none of these verses say anything about Michael the archangel. At His second coming Jesus' will be accompanied by angels, which will include archangels.

Also, as Ron Rhodes' points out (see `tagline' quote below), "... we are explicitly told in Hebrews 2:5 that the world is not (and will not be) in subjection to an angel. .... Christ the glorified God-man will reign supreme (Revelation 19:16). Now, if no angel can rule the world (Hebrews 2:5), then Christ cannot be the archangel Michael, since Scripture repeatedly says Christ is to be the ruler of God's kingdom ..."

By the way, JW's believe this has already happened invisibly in 1914!:

"The preceding chapter in this book explained that Jesus Christ became King in heaven in the year 1914. (Daniel 7:13, 14) Soon after he received Kingdom power, Jesus took action. `War broke out in heaven,' says the Bible. `Michael [another name for Jesus] and his angels battled with the dragon [Satan the Devil], and the dragon and its angels battled.' Satan and his wicked angels, the demons, lost that war and were cast out of heaven to the earth. God's faithful spirit sons rejoiced that Satan and his demons were gone. Humans, however, would experience no such joy. Instead, the Bible foretold: `Woe for the earth ... because the Devil has come down to' you, having great anger, knowing he has a short period of time.' - Revelation 12:7, 9, 12." ("What Does the Bible Really Teach?" Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York: Brooklyn NY, 2005, pp.8-9. Emphasis original).

So the Bible speaks of both Michael and `his angels' and Jesus and `his angels.' (Matthew 13:41) This verse:

Mt 13:41 NWT. The Son of man will send forth his angels, and they will collect out from his kingdom all things that cause stumbling and persons who are doing lawlessness,

actually refutes JW's claim that this all happened "Soon after" "the year 1914". Where are the "angels" who "will collect out from his kingdom all things that cause stumbling and persons who are doing lawlessness"?

The Bible also speaks of "his angels" being the Father's, and also of "the angels of God" and "God's angels":

Rev 3:5 NWT. He that conquers will thus be arrayed in white outer garments; and I will by no means blot out his name from the book of life, but I will make acknowledgment of his name before my Father and before his angels.

Lk 12:8 NWT. "I say, then, to YOU, Everyone that confesses union with me before men, the Son of man will also confess union with him before the angels of God.

Heb 1:6 NWT. But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: "And let all God's angels do obeisance to him."

The JW fallacy here is assuming that they cannot be the same angels under a hierarchy of leaders, i.e. God the Father -> Jesus -> Michael. That is, Michael's angels are a subset of Jesus' angels which are also God the Father's angels. For example, President Bush is (at the time of writing) Commander-in-Chief of the all US forces, yet he has leaders under him, such as General Petraeus, who has a subset of the same US forces under him in Iraq. So the President could speak of his soldiers in Iraq, and General Petraeus could also speak of his soldiers in Iraq, yet they are the same soldiers!

Since God's Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven-one headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus- This too is false. As we saw above, there in nothing in the Bible that says that Michael the archangel heads an army, and the Bible does say of Jesus "that the armies that were in heaven were following him." So the evidence is that what angels Michael has under his command are part of Jesus' "armies".

it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role. Again "logical" is yet another of those weak words, like "indicates" and "suggests," which shows that the Watchtower has no adequate evidence "that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ," and indeed the very evidence it cites, refutes its claim!

So, as we have seen in this two-part post, it is in fact illogical (to put it mildly) for the Watchtower "to conclude that Michael [the archangel] is none other than Jesus Christ"!

But then, the Watchtower does not really conclude that Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel. Rather it starts with the assumption that Jesus Christ is not God, but it then has the problem of who then Jesus is. It has to be someone in the Bible, and Michael the archangel is the best (i.e. least worst) candidate! So having no other alternative, the Watchtower scratches around for Bible verses to support its apriori assumption. But as we have seen those very verses that the Watchtower assembles to support its claim "that Michael [the archangel] is none other than Jesus Christ", actually refute its claim!

PS: Below are `tagline' quotes all from non-Watchtower literature critical of the Watchtower's claim that Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel, i.e. "Michael is another name for Jesus Christ," "Jesus himself is the archangel Michael" and "Michael is none other than Jesus Christ ..." See `tagline' quotes at the end of part #1 all from Watchtower literature in support of that claim.

Stephen E. Jones.
My other blogs: CreationEvolutionDesign & TheShroudofTurin

---

"Revelation 3:14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God. (KJV) This verse is one of the Jehovah's Witnesses' favorites, in their attempt to `prove' that Jesus Christ is a mere created being, the first angel that God made. `Look!' they say. `Jesus is `the beginning of the creation.' But they should be careful. They will tell you that God the Father is the speaker at Revelation 21:6 and 22:13, yet in both verses he calls himself `the beginning.' Therefore, `the beginning' must mean something else other than the first thing created. Actually, in each of these cases, the Greek text says arche, a word listed in Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words as having such varied meanings as `beginning,' `power,' `magistrate,' and `ruler.' The Watchtower Bible translates the plural of the same word as `government officials' at Luke 12:11. It is the root of our words archbishop, architect, and other words referring to someone who is chief over others. Thus, the New International Version at Revelation 3:14 says that Christ is `the ruler of God's creation.' So there is no basis for claiming that Revelation 3:14 makes Jesus Christ a created being." (Reed, D.A., "Jehovah's Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse," [1986], Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Thirty-first printing, 2006, pp.103-104. Emphasis original).

"Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1 `... . Michael, one of the foremost princes, came to help me. ... Michael, the prince of you people... . And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people... .' (NWT) The Watchtower Society teaches Jehovah's Witnesses that Jesus Christ was a mere angel, who was born as a human, died as a sacrifice for sins, and was raised up as an angel once again. They refer to him as `Jesus Christ, whom we understand from the Scriptures to be Michael the archangel ...' (The Watchtower, 2/15/79, p. 31). But is that really what the Bible teaches? Or is it, rather, a teaching that Watchtower leaders superimpose on Scripture? God's inspired Word mentions Michael five times-as (1) `one of the foremost princes' (Dan. 10:13, NWT); (2) `the prince of [Daniel's] people' (Dan. 10:21, NWT); (3) `the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel's] people' (Dan. 12:1, NWT); (4) `the archangel' who `had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses' body' but `did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms' (Jude 9, NWT); and (5) a participant in heavenly conflict when `Michael and his angels battled with the dragon' (Rev. 12:7, NWT). Which of these verses state that Michael is Jesus Christ? None of them! It is necessary to read Scripture plus a complicated Watchtower argument to reach that conclusion." (Reed, 1986, pp.46-47. Emphasis original).

"The Society also turns for support to another verse that does not use the name Michael but says that `the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet' (1 Thess. 4:16, NWT). But, if using an archangel's voice makes the Lord an archangel, then having God's trumpet makes him God- even though Watchtower leaders would have us look at only the first part of the verse." (Reed, 1986, p.47. Emphasis original).

"Does the Bible teach elsewhere that Jesus Christ is a mere angel? To the contrary, the entire first chapter of Hebrews was written to show the superiority of the Son of God as compared to angels. Verse after verse contrasts the angels with `... His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds; who being the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person ... having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. For to which of the angels did He ever say: 'You are My Son, today I have begotten you'? ... But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: 'Let all the angels of God worship Him.' And of the angels He says: 'Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire.' But to the Son He says: 'Your throne, O God, is forever and ever... .' And: `You, LORD, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth... .' (Heb. 1:2-8, 10, NKJV) The Son is `the reflection' of the Father's glory `and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power'-something no angel could do-even according to the Watchtower's own translation of Hebrews 1:3 (NWT)." (Reed, 1986, pp.47-48. Emphasis original).

"Moreover, good angels consistently refuse to accept worship. When the apostle John fell down to worship at the feet of an angel, the angel rebuked him, saying, `Be careful! Do not do that! ... Worship God' (Rev. 22:8-9, NWT). But the Father's command concerning the Son is to `let all God's angels worship him' (Heb. 1:6, NWT, 1961 edition). In later editions, the Watchtower Society changed `worship' to `obeisance' at Hebrew 1:6. Still, regardless of how it is translated, the same Greek word proskuneo is used at both Rev. 22:8-9 and Hebrews 1:6. The proskuneo (worship or obeisance) that angels refuse to accept, but say to give only to God, is the same proskuneo (worship or obeisance) that the Father commands to be given to the Son at Hebrews 1:6. So, the Son cannot be an angel, but must be God. (See discussion of Heb. 1:6.)" (Reed, 1986, p.47).

"Persons who stop following the Watchtower organization, and start following Jesus Christ, soon come to appreciate that he is no mere angel. This realization is important, in order that they may `honor the Son just as they honor the Father' (John 5:23, NWT)." (Reed, 1986, p.47).

"Even the nonegocentric interpretations in The Finished Mystery [Russell, C.T., "Studies in the Scriptures: Series VII-the Finished Mystery," International Bible Students Association, Brooklyn NY, 1917] tend to run contrary to current Watchtower teachings in ways that prove quite startling. For example, while the sect's leadership today interprets `Michael and his angels' at Revelation 12:7 to mean Jesus Christ (alias Michael the archangel) and subordinate angels, this book says that Michael is `the Pope' and his angels are `the Bishops' (p. 188). And in discussing Revelation 1:8 it says that `since His resurrection' Jesus can `be called the Almighty' (p. 15)." (Reed, D.A., "Jehovah's Witness Literature: A Critical Guide to Watchtower Publications," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1993, p.58)

"Michael the Archangel The Watchtower says, `Jesus Christ further deserves honor because he is Jehovah's chief angel, or archangel.' (The Watchtower, February 1, 1991, page 17) Jehovah's Witnesses believe the Son of God to be `Jesus Christ, whom we understand from the Scriptures to be Michael the archangel...... (The Watchtower, February 15, 1979, page 31) Does that understanding really come `from the Scriptures'? Or is it, rather, a teaching that Watchtower leaders superimpose on Scripture? God's inspired Word mentions Michael five times: as `one of the foremost princes' (Daniel 10:13 NWT), as `the prince of [Daniel's] people' (Daniel 10:21 NWT), as `the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel's] people' (Daniel 12:1 NWT), as `the archangel' who `had a difference with the devil and was disputing about Moses' body' but `did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms' (Jude 9 NWT), and as a participant in heavenly conflict when `Michael and his angels battled with the dragon' (Revelation 12:7 NWT). Does one of these verses say that Michael the archangel is Jesus Christ? No. It is necessary to read Scripture plus a Watchtower argument to reach that conclusion." (Reed, D.A., 1996, "Answering Jehovah's Witnesses: Subject by Subject," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, Second printing, 1998, pp.157-158. Emphasis original).

"That argument is presented this way in the April 15, 1991, Watchtower magazine, on page 28: Why do we conclude that Jesus is the archangel Michael? God's Word mentions only one archangel, and it speaks of that angel in reference to the resurrected Lord Jesus: `The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet.' (1 Thessalonians 4:16) At Jude 9 we find that this archangel's name is Michael. The argument consists of three parts that can be analyzed separately: (1) `God's Word mentions only one archangel,' (2) `it speaks of that angel in reference to the resurrected Lord Jesus,' and (3) `this archangel's name is Michael.'" (Reed, 1996, p.158).

"In answer to (1) and (3) it should be noted that the term `archangel' is found only twice in the Bible-at 1 Thessalonians 4:16 and Jude 9-providing insufficient information to say for certain that there are no other archangels besides Michael. Although he is the only archangel named in Scripture, Michael is referred to as `one of the foremost princes.' (Daniel 10:13 NWT) The Bible leaves open the possibility that there are other unnamed archangels besides Michael. As for part (2) of the Watchtower argument, it is faulty logic to conclude that descending `with an archangel's voice' means that Jesus is an archangel. If descending with an archangel's voice makes Christ an archangel, then descending `with God's trumpet' makes Him God. The same logic must be applied to the entire verse, not just part of it." (Reed, 1996, pp.158-159. Emphasis original).

"Does the Bible teach anywhere else that Jesus Christ is a mere angel? On the contrary, the entire first chapter of Hebrews was written to show the superiority of the Son of God as compared with angels. `For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: 'You are my son; I, today, I have become your father'?' (Hebrews 1:5 NWT) ('For God never said to any angel, 'Thou art my Son.. .'- New English Bible) The Son is `the reflection' of the Father's glory `and the exact representation of his very being, and he sustains all things by the word of his power.' (Hebrews 1:3 NW)." (Reed, 1996, p.159).

"Angels consistently refuse to accept worship, saying: `Be careful! Do not do that! ... Worship God.' (Revelation 22:8-9 NWT) But, the Father's command concerning the Son is, `let all God's angels worship him.' (Hebrews 1:6 NWT, edition of 1961) In a later edition of its Bible the Watchtower Society changed worship to obeisance at Hebrews 1:6. Still, regardless of how it is translated, the same Greek word proskuneo is used at both Revelation 22:8-9 and Hebrews 1:6. The proskuneo (worship or obeisance) that angels refuse to accept, but say to give only to God, is the same proskuneo (worship or obeisance) that the Father commands to be given to the Son at Hebrews 1:6. Persons who stop following the man-made Watchtower organization and start following Jesus Christ soon come to appreciate that the Son of God is no mere angel. This realization is important, in order that they may `honor the Son just as they honor the Father.' (John 5:23 NWT)" (Reed, 1996, p.159).

"Moreover, even when a JW begins to question his beliefs and to search for God, starting him off with the Trinity doctrine is like introducing a youngster to mathematics by starting him off with college calculus instead of elementary arithmetic. In most cases it is necessary for a Witness first to discover that the Watchtower organization is a false prophet incapable of providing salvation, second to recognize a personal need for the Savior Jesus Christ, and third to undertake a systematic study with the aim of deprogramming and relearning. Watchtower ideas must be removed from the brain one by one and be replaced with accurate Bible understanding. Even at that point in time it is usually best to approach theological questions with a JW (or former JW) in this sequence: 1 Demonstrate that Jesus is not a mere angel. (See Michael the Archangel.) Allow time for the Witness to get accustomed to this knowledge before pressing on to establish who Jesus is. 2 Allow Scripture to reveal the personality of the Holy Spirit. (See Holy Spirit.) 3 Let the individual read the four Gospels-maybe even the whole New Testament-in a Bible that does not contain the New World Translation's theological distortions. 4 Point out biblically the deity of Christ and the deity of the Holy Spirit. 5 Explain that, although the Bible does not feature the word Trinity, it is a term that believers have found helpful in expressing the biblical concept that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, yet there is only one God. Pushing new ex-JWs on the issue of the Trinity seldom gets them to accept it; rather, such pressure sometimes pushes them back into the Watchtower camp, or drives them to fellowship among themselves in isolated groups. The best approach, in my experience, is to lead them to God's Word and allow the Holy Spirit to teach them correct theology." (Reed, 1986, pp.218-219. Emphasis original).

"Daniel 10:13,21; 12:1-Michael the Great Prince Based upon these verses, Jehovah's Witnesses argue that in His prehuman state Jesus was the archangel Michael and was a great prince of the people of God. They also say that the prophecy in Daniel 12:1 points to Michael's (Jesus') enthronement as king in heaven in 1914. ['Your Will Be Done on Earth,' Watchtower Bible & Tract Society: Brooklyn, 1958, p.310] Indeed, `the Michael that stands up as the `great prince' to fulfill Daniel 12:1 is the Lord Jesus Christ at God's right hand.' [Ibid., p.313] (The phrase `stand up' is interpreted by the Watchtower Society to mean `take control and reign as king.' [Ibid., p.311]) According to Watchtower theology, then, these verses in Daniel indicate that Jesus was Michael in both His prehuman state and in His posthuman state (that is, following His resurrection). Jesus' progressive existence may be summed up as angel-human-angel." (Rhodes, R., 1993, "Reasoning from the Scriptures with the Jehovah's Witnesses," Harvest House: Eugene OR, Reprinted, 2006, pp.176-177. Emphasis original).

"The Biblical Teaching. As you respond to the Watchtower interpretation of Daniel 10:13,21 and 12:1, there are several important points you will want to make. First: Ask ... o Where in the text of Daniel 10 and 12 is there any explicit statement that this is a reference to Jesus Christ? The Jehovah's Witnesses will not be able to point you to such an explicit statement. But they will probably try to argue that Michael is called a `chief prince,' thus appealing to his authority over the other angels. This must be Christ, they will tell you. However, it is vital to mention that in Daniel 10:13 Michael is specifically called `one of the chief princes' (emphasis added). The fact that Michael is `one of' the chief princes indicates that he is one among a group of chief princes. How large that group is, we are not told. But the fact that Michael is one among equals proves that he is not unique. By contrast, the Greek word used to describe Jesus in John 3:16 is monogenes-which means `unique,' `one of a kind.' Ask ... o If Jesus is the first and highest of all created beings, as the Watchtower teaches-and if Jesus in His prehuman state was Michael the Archangel-then why is Michael called `one of the chief princes' in Daniel 10:13? o Doesn't this verse indicate that Michael is one among a group of equals? You will also want to emphasize that Jesus is never called `Chief Prince' in the Bible. (If they argue that He is called that in Daniel 10:13, ask them again where Jesus is explicitly mentioned in the text.) The fact is, Jesus is called the `King of kings and Lord of lords' in Revelation 19:16. This is a title that indicates absolute sovereignty and authority. A King of kings/Lord of lords is much higher in authority than a mere `Chief Prince' (who is one among equals). The first one has absolute sovereignty and authority; the latter has derived, limited authority." (Rhodes, 1993, pp.177-178. Emphasis original).

"As stated in earlier chapters, you might want to point out that the whole focus of Hebrews 1-3 is to demonstrate the superiority of Jesus Christ-including His superiority over the prophets (1:1-4), the angels (1:5-2:18), and Moses (3:1-6).22 How is this superiority demonstrated? Christ is shown to be God's ultimate revelation (1:1); He is affirmed as the Creator and Sustainer of the universe (1:2,3); and He is said to have the very nature of God (1:3). None of these things could be said of the prophets, the angels, or Moses. We read in Hebrews 1:5-2:18 of Christ's superiority over the angels. In Hebrews 1:5, we are told that no angel can ever be called God's son: `To which of the angels did He [God] ever say, `Thou art My Son...'?' Since Jesus is the Son of God, and since no angel can ever be called God's Son, then Jesus cannot possibly be the archangel Michael. Ask... o If no angel can ever be called God's Son (Hebrews 1:5)-and if Jesus is in fact the Son of God-then doesn't this mean that Jesus cannot be the archangel Michael?" (Rhodes, 1993, p.178. Emphasis original).

"Moving on to Hebrews 1:6, we are told that Christ is worshiped (proskuneo) by the angels. As noted earlier in chapter 5, this is the exact same word used in reference to worshiping Jehovah God. Christ was worshiped with the same kind of worship rendered to the Father. There can be no getting around this fact. Jesus is not an angel; He is worshiped by the angels. Commentator Ray Stedman's point about this passage is worth repeating. He notes that `in the Song of Moses, the angels are called to worship Yahweh (Jehovah). New Testament writers apply such passages without hesitation to Jesus. Many places in Scripture witness the obedience of the angels, notably Job 38:7, Luke 2:13, and Revelation 5:11-12. Mark 3:11 indicates that even the demons (fallen angels) fell down before Jesus when they saw him and addressed him as the Son of God.' [Stedman, R., "Hebrews," InterVarsity Press: Downers Grove IL, 1992, p.29]." (Rhodes, 1993, p.178. Emphasis original).

"Another argument that can be drawn from the Book of Hebrews is that we are explicitly told in Hebrews 2:5 that the world is not (and will not be) in subjection to an angel. Interestingly, the Dead Sea Scrolls (discovered at Qumran in 1947) reflect an expectation that the archangel Michael would be a supreme figure in the coming Messianic Kingdom. It may be that some of the recipients of the Book of Hebrews were tempted to assign angels a place above Christ. Whether or not this is so, Hebrews 2:5 makes it absolutely clear that no angel (the archangel included) will rule in God's kingdom. Christ the glorified God-man will reign supreme (Revelation 19:16). Now, if no angel can rule the world (Hebrews 2:5), then Christ cannot be the archangel Michael, since Scripture repeatedly says Christ is to be the ruler of God's kingdom (e.g., Genesis 49:10; 2 Samuel 7:16; Psalm 2:6; Daniel 7:13,14; Luke 1:32,33; Matthew 2:1,2; 9:35; 13ff.; Revelation 19:16). Do not allow the Jehovah's Witness to sidestep this issue. Ask... o If no angel can rule the world (Hebrews 2:5)-and if Scripture clearly says that Christ is ruler of the world (Luke 1:32,33; Revelation 19:16)-then doesn't this mean that Christ cannot be the archangel Michael?" (Rhodes, 1993, p.179. Emphasis original).

"There is one other argument I want to mention. It is based on the biblical doctrine of the immutability of Christ. Immutability-one of the key attributes of God in the Bible-refers to the idea that Christ (as God) is unchangeable, and thus unchanging. This does not mean that Christ is immobile or inactive, but it does mean that He never grows or develops or changes in His essential nature as God. This is in dire contrast to the Watchtower teaching that Christ was created as an angel, later became a human being, and then (at the "resurrection") became an angel again. A key passage relating to the immutability of Christ is Hebrews 1:10-12, where the Father speaks of the Son's unchanging nature: "In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth, and the heavens are the work of your hands. They will perish, but you remain; they will all wear out like a garment. You will roll them up like a robe; like a garment they will be changed. But you remain the same, and your years will never end" (emphasis added). Hebrews 1:10-12 is actually a quotation from Psalm 102:25-27. It is highly intriguing to note that the words in this psalm are addressed to Jehovah, but are applied directly to Jesus Christ in Hebrews 1:10-12. This represents a strong argument for Christ's full deity. Hebrews 1:10-12 teaches that even when the present creation wears out like an old garment, Jesus will remain unchanged." (Rhodes, 1993, p.180. Emphasis original).

"Christ's immutability is also affirmed in Hebrews 13:8, where we are told that `Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever' (emphasis added). If Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever, then He couldn't have been an angel, become a human, and then been re-created as an angel. Now, it is true that in the incarnation Christ the eternal Son of God took on a human nature, but orthodox scholars have always held that it is the divine nature of Christ that remains unchanged and is therefore immutable. [Walvoord, J.E., "Jesus Christ Our Lord," Moody Press: Chicago IL, 1980, p.30] Unlike the doctrine of the incarnation, the Watchtower Society teaches that Jesus' existence throughout history may be summed up angel-human-angel. This represents a change in nature-and it contradicts Hebrews 13:8 and other passages on Christ's immutability. Ask... o Since Scripture teaches that Jesus is `the same yesterday and today and forever' (Hebrews 13:8), then how can it be said that Jesus was an angel, became a man, and then became an angel again?" (Rhodes, 1993, p.180. Emphasis original).

"1 Thessalonians 4:16-The Voice of an Archangel The Watchtower Teaching. The New World Translation renders 1 Thessalonians 4:16, `The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.' The Watchtower Society argues that the Lord Himself issues forth a commanding call with the voice of the archangel, thereby proving that He is the archangel Michael. In support of this interpretation, Aid to Bible Understanding comments, `Michael is the only one said to be the `archangel,' meaning `chief angel' or `principal angel.' The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief or head of the angelic host. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel.' ["Aid to Bible Understanding," 1971, p.1152] The Biblical Teaching. In your answer to the Jehovah's Witness begin by addressing the claim that because `archangel' occurs in the singular, this must mean that `there is but one whom God has designated chief or head of the angelic host.' Point the Witness to Daniel 10:13, where Michael is specifically called `one of the chief princes.' The fact that Michael is `one of' the chief princes indicates that he is one among a group of chief princes. How large that group is, we are not told. But the fact that Michael is one among equals proves that he is not totally unique. Ask... o If Jesus is the first and highest of all created beings, as the Watchtower teaches-and if Jesus in His prehuman state was Michael the archangel-then why is Michael called `one of the chief princes' in Daniel 10:13? Doesn't this indicate that Michael is one among equals?" (Rhodes, 1993, pp.181-182. Emphasis original).

"You might also point out that simply because the word `archangel' (in 1 Thessalonians 4:16) occurs in the singular and with a definite article (the archangel) does not mean there is only one archangel. In his book Angels: Elect and Evil, theologian Fred Dickason notes that `the definite article with archangel does not necessarily limit the class of archangel to Michael. The article may be one of identification as the well-known archangel instead of limitation as the only archangel. There may be others of the same class or rank, since he is described as `one of the chief princes' (Dan. 10:13).' [Dickason, F., "Angels: Elect and Evil," Moody Press: Chicago IL, 1975, p. 68, emphasis added] Jewish tradition has always held that there are seven archangels. [Bromiley, G.W., ed., "International Standard Bible Encyclopedia," Vol. 3, Eerdmans: Grand Rapids MI, 1986, p.347] After sharing this, read 1 Thessalonians 4:16 aloud from a reliable translation, such as the New International Version: `For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.'" (Rhodes, 1993, p.182. Emphasis original).

"Former Jehovah's Witness David Reed suggests mentioning to the Jehovah's Witness that `if using an archangel's voice makes the Lord an archangel, then having God's trumpet makes him God-even though Watchtower leaders would have us look at only the first part of the verse.' [Reed, D.A., "Jehovah's Witnesses Answered Verse by Verse," Baker: Grand Rapids MI, 1992, p.47] That is a legitimate point. One must be consistent in how one approaches the text. One cannot just use the portion of the verse that-stripped from its context-supports one's view. Ask... o If the reference to the archangel's voice makes the Lord Jesus an archangel, then-to be consistent-doesn't having God's trumpet make Jesus God? (Be sure to mention that you don't believe that having God's trumpet means Jesus is God. Belief in Christ's deity is based on numerous other passages. However, the above question does illustrate the folly of Watchtower reasoning.)" (Rhodes, 1993, pp.182-183. Emphasis original).

"A careful look at 1 Thessalonians 4:16 reveals that the text never explicitly says that Jesus Himself speaks with the voice of the archangel. This is an unwarranted assumption of the Watchtower Society, based on a strong theological bias. It is much more natural and logical to read the verse as saying that when Jesus comes from heaven to rapture the church from the earth, He will be accompanied by the archangel since it is the archangel's voice (distinct from Jesus) that issues the shout. This is not unlike what will happen at the Second Coming of Christ (seven years after the Rapture, following the Tribulation period). At the Second Coming, "the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with His mighty angels in flaming fire" (2 Thessalonians 1:7 NASB, emphasis added). If the angels accompany Christ at the Second Coming, then surely the archangel Michael will accompany Him as well." (Rhodes, 1993, p.183. Emphasis original).

"The Authority to Rebuke Satan. A key observation regarding Michael the archangel is that he does not have the authority to rebuke Satan. Point the Jehovah's Witness to Jude 9, which says, `But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, `The Lord rebuke you!' By contrast, Jesus rebuked the devil on a number of different occasions (see, for example, Matthew 4:10; 16:23; Mark 8:33). [MacGregor, L., "What You Need to Know about Jehovah's Witnesses," Harvest House Publishers: Eugene OR, 1992, p.51] Since Michael could not rebuke the devil in his own authority and Jesus could (and did), Michael and Jesus cannot be the same person. Ask... o Since Michael the archangel could not rebuke the devil in his own authority and Jesus could (and did), doesn't that mean Michael and Jesus cannot be the same person?" (Rhodes, 1993, pp.183-184. Emphasis original).

"Notice in Jude 9 that Michael the archangel said `The Lord rebuke you!' (emphasis added). The Greek word for `Lord' in this verse is kurios. It is the standard word for `Lord' in the New Testament. It is also a direct parallel to the word Yahweh or Jehovah in the Old Testament. Now, it's crucial to note that while Jesus is called kurios ('Lord') many times in the New Testament, Michael is never called kurios. For example, we are told that Jesus is kurios ('Lord') in Philippians 2:9-11, and that at the name of Jesus every knee ill bow in heaven and on earth, and every tongue will confess that Jesus is Lord. The apostle Paul, an Old Testament scholar par excellence, is here alluding to Isaiah 45:22,23: `I am God, and there is no other. By myself I have sworn, my mouth has uttered in all integrity a word that will not be revoked: Before me every knee will bow; by me every tongue will swear.' Paul was drawing on his vast knowledge of the Old Testament to make the point that Jesus Christ is kurios and Yahweh-the Lord of all humankind. Now, the point of my saying all this is that when Michael said `the Lord rebuke you,' he was appealing directly to the sovereign authority of the Lord of the universe. And Jesus is clearly the sovereign Lord of the universe." (Rhodes, 1993, p.184. Emphasis original).

"Christ Created the Angels. A final point you will want to make is that Christ is the Creator, and angels are among the created. Colossians 1:16,17 tells us that `by Christ `all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.' Notice that Paul says Christ created `thrones,' `powers,' `rulers,' and `authorities.' In the rabbinic (Jewish) thought of the first century, these words were used to describe the different orders of angels (see Romans 8:38; Ephesians 1:21; 3:10; 6:12; Colossians 2:10,15; Titus 3:1). Apparently there was a heresy flourishing in Colossae (to where Paul wrote the Book of Colossians) that involved the worship of angels. The end result of that worship was that Christ had been degraded. To correct this grave error, Paul emphasized that Christ is the one who created all things-including all the angels-and thus, He is supreme and is alone worthy to be worshiped. Since Michael is an angel, he would be one of Christ's created beings. Christ therefore cannot be the archangel Michael." (Rhodes, 1993, p.185. Emphasis original).