Melito, bishop of Sardis, calls the Son Archangel

[Randy_Carson]

Dan-

Could you take a few moments to learn how the quote feature works? That would be very helpful in our correspondence.

I can understand that JW’s consider the matter to be a minor issue. But to orthodox Christians, the question of whehter Jesus was actually Michael is a big deal. Either Jesus is God, part of the Trinity, or He isn’t. Not a minor issue.

I’m not convinced that Wesley denied the Trinity or that Jesus was God (co-eternal, co-equal, of the same substance, etc.) simply because of this one comment on Daniel 12. Are you?

I’m sure you know that this question about Jesus is a BIG difference between historical Christianity and JW’s. I feel certain you’ve had this type of conversation before.

Finally, as someone who has studied the scriptures for many, many years, I was already aware of John 1:41 and the connection between “messiah” and “Christ”, but thanks anyway.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Randy Carson

Could you take a few moments to learn how the quote feature works? That would be very helpful in our correspondence.

Dan:
I don’t see them used consistently. I do find it difficult when someone uses the quote instead of indent because those comments do not show up when replying.

Randy Carson
I can understand that JW’s consider the matter to be a minor issue. But to orthodox Christians, the question of whehter Jesus was actually Michael is a big deal. Either Jesus is God, part of the Trinity, or He isn’t. Not a minor issue.

Dan:
The fact that you won’t acknowledge that I don’t claim that those who say Jesus is Michael deny the trinity does not change that fact. I am more than happy to discuss this topic and others who acknowledge my argument and address what I actually write and not a straw-man argument of their own making.

Randy Carson
I’m not convinced that Wesley denied the Trinity or that Jesus was God (co-eternal, co-equal, of the same substance, etc.) simply because of this one comment on Daniel 12. Are you?

Dan:
I am quite certain that Methodist believe the Trinity because Wesley did. I am also quite certain that no bible writer teaches that doctrine in context, not even in its most basic form.

Randy Carson
I’m sure you know that this question about Jesus is a BIG difference between historical Christianity and JW’s. I feel certain you’ve had this type of conversation before.

Dan:
If by historical Christianity you refer to the post-apostolic historians and theologians, yes, I agree there is a big difference. I have actually posted that this is what I would expect. What we do see is a gradual change from the 2nd century onward where apologists like Justin Martyr don’t consider the Son to be the Creator (but consider him to be QEOS on other grounds) in the later centuries. In the 3rd and 4th centuries those theologians who won the doctrinal wars would never say that the Son was not the Creator. The teaching that the holy spirit is a person and of the same substance as the Father and Son is also something that came later.

However, the theology of 2nd century apologists is something different than both Jehovah’s Witnesses teach and what modern day Trinitarians teach.

Randy Carson
Finally, as someone who has studied the scriptures for many, many years, I was already aware of John 1:41 and the connection between “messiah” and “Christ”, but thanks anyway.

Dan:
Then may I be so bold as to ask why you asked for a reference by Wesley of Christ and would not accept Messiah when they are the same word, Greek and Hebrew respectively?

 

[patrick457]

Thanks, are you familiar with Origen stating that one of the seraphs at Isaiah 6 was the Son?

Oh yep, I’ve heard of it. In his Homily on Isaiah (1.2) Origen states that the two seraphim are ‘my Lord Jesus and the Holy Spirit’. “They covered the face of God, for the origin of God is unknown. But also the feet. For what would be the last thing comprehended in our God? Only the middle is visible; what was before I do not know. From what now is I know God; what will be after this in the future I do not know.”

Also, in Peri Archon/De Principiis (1.3, 4), Origen writes:

Some indeed of our predecessors have observed, that in the New Testament, whenever the Spirit is named without that adjunct which denotes quality, the Holy Spirit is to be understood; as e.g., in the expression, “Now the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, and peace;” and, “Seeing you began in the Spirit, are you now made perfect in the flesh?” We are of opinion that this distinction may be observed in the Old Testament also, as when it is said, “He that gives His Spirit to the people who are upon the earth, and Spirit to them who walk thereon.” For, without doubt, every one who walks upon the earth (i.e., earthly and corporeal beings) is a partaker also of the Holy Spirit, receiving it from God.
My Hebrew master also used to say that those two seraphim in Isaiah, which are described as having each six wings, and calling to one another, and saying, “Holy, holy, holy, Lord God of hosts,” were to be understood of the only-begotten Son of God and of the Holy Spirit. And we think that that expression also which occurs in the hymn of Habakkuk (3:2), “In the midst either of the two living things,” or ‘of the two lives,’ “you will be known,” ought to be understood of Christ and of the Holy Spirit. For all knowledge of the Father is obtained by revelation of the Son through the Holy Spirit, so that both of these beings which, according to the prophet, are called either living things or lives, exist as the ground of the knowledge of God the Father. For as it is said of the Son, “that no one knows the Father but the Son,” and he to whom the Son will reveal Him, the same also is said by the apostle of the Holy Spirit, when He declares, "God has revealed them to us by His Holy Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God2; and again in the Gospel, when the Savior, speaking of the divine and profounder parts of His teaching, which His disciples were not yet able to receive, thus addresses them: “I have yet many things to say to you, but you cannot bear them now; but when the Holy Spirit, the Comforter, has come, He will teach you all things, and will bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said to you.” We must understand, therefore, that as the Son, who alone knows the Father, reveals Him to whom He will, so the Holy Spirit, who alone searches the deep things of God, reveals God to whom He will: For the Spirit blows where He lists.

Still, Origen makes a sort of distinction between the Son and the Holy Spirit and the angels in another passage of the work (4.3, 14), where he ascribes to the two the comprehension of “the beginning and end of all things”, something that “the hosts of holy angels” and the “thrones, dominions, kingdoms, and powers” do not perfectly know:

[M]y Hebrew teacher also used thus to teach, that as the beginning or end of all things could be comprehended by no one, save only our Lord Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, so under the form of a vision Isaiah spoke of two seraphim alone, who with two wings cover the countenance of God, and with two His feet, and with two do fly, calling to each other alternately, and saying, ‘Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Sabaoth; the whole earth is full of your glory.’ That the seraphim alone have both their wings over the face of God, and over His feet, we venture to declare as meaning that neither the hosts of holy angels, nor the holy seats, nor the dominions, nor the principalities, nor the powers, can fully understand the beginning of all things, and the limits of the universe.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Dan_Parker:
Could you take a few moments to learn how the quote feature works? That would be very helpful in our correspondence.

I don’t see them used consistently. I do find it difficult when someone uses the quote instead of indent because those comments do not show up when replying.
How to use the Catholic Answers Forum Quote Function

If you want to respond to something that someone else posted, you can simply hit the “Quote” button on the lower right…not the “Post Reply” button on the lower left. Simply begin typing after the text that the forum automatically copies for you. That’s what I did at the beginning of this post above.

If you want to insert your comments into the middle of something you are quoting, you have to manually insert square brackets. Here is the original passage I want to comment on:

Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot, and everywhere that Mary went, his sooty foot he put.

In order to show you what you need to do, I have to use a different set of brackets for illustrative purposes only. I’ll use { and } instead of and ] so that you can see where the brackets should be located, and I’ll insert my comments in red text.

{quote}Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot,{/quote} I’m inserting my comments here in red. {quote}and everywhere that Mary went, his sooty foot he put.{/quote}Hope this helps.

Now, wherever you see the { or } you have to actually use a square bracket or ]. So the paragraph above comes out like this:

Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot,

I’m inserting my comments here in red.

and everywhere that Mary went his sooty foot he put.

Hope this helps.

One more thing: the quote function will automatically insert the name of the person to whom you are replying so that person can find your response more easily.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Could you take a few moments to learn how the quote feature works? That would be very helpful in our correspondence.

How to use the Catholic Answers Forum Quote Function

If you want to respond to something that someone else posted, you can simply hit the “Quote” button on the lower right…not the “Post Reply” button on the lower left. Simply begin typing after the text that the forum automatically copies for you. That’s what I did at the beginning of this post above.

If you want to insert your comments into the middle of something you are quoting, you have to manually insert square brackets. Here is the original passage I want to comment on:

Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot, and everywhere that Mary went, his sooty foot he put.

In order to show you what you need to do, I have to use a different set of brackets for illustrative purposes only. I’ll use { and } instead of and ] so that you can see where the brackets should be located, and I’ll insert my comments in red text.

{quote}Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot,{/quote} I’m inserting my comments here in red. {quote}and everywhere that Mary went, his sooty foot he put.{/quote}Hope this helps.

Now, wherever you see the { or } you have to actually use a square bracket or ]. So the paragraph above comes out like this:

Mary had a little lamb whose fleece was black as soot,

I’m inserting my comments here in red.

and everywhere that Mary went his sooty foot he put.

Hope this helps.

One more thing: the quote function will automatically insert the name of the person to whom you are replying so that person can find your response more easily.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Dan:
Then may I be so bold as to ask why you asked for a reference by Wesley of Christ and would not accept Messiah when they are the same word, Greek and Hebrew respectively?

Because I wanted to see what you had on Wesley.

Forgive me, but I think you are trying to say, “See, John Wesley claimed that Jesus was Michael, too.” This would support JW theology. If not, why would you go to the trouble to quote him?

If you don’t believe that Wesley thought Jesus is Michael, then why did you bring up Wesley’s commentary in the first place?

So, the bottom line is this: What do you believe that Wesley taught about Jesus? Did Wesley believe that Jesus is Michael? Yes or no.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Because I wanted to see what you had on Wesley.

Forgive me, but I think you are trying to say, “See, John Wesley claimed that Jesus was Michael, too.” This would support JW theology. If not, why would you go to the trouble to quote him?

If you don’t believe that Wesley thought Jesus is Michael, then why did you bring up Wesley’s commentary in the first place?

So, the bottom line is this: What do you believe that Wesley taught about Jesus? Did Wesley believe that Jesus is Michael? Yes or no.

Dan:
No, Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t teach that when Jesus was on earth he was Michael. We view this as the name of the Son both before he became flesh and after he was resurrected.

I have no idea what Wesley taught on the subject other than what I quoted you. Perhaps you can research this and let me know what you find out. However, Wesley did say that Michael was the Messiah which means Christ.

That word means anointed and Jehovah’s Witnesses teach that this happened when he was anointed with holy spirit at his baptism. I am not sure what Wesley taught.

When do you say the Son became the Messiah?

 

[matahari]

The Catholic Church was founded by Jesus , Son of God
Jehovahs Witnesses were founded by a freemason
I wonder which one is teaching Truth ?

 

[Ron_Conte]

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have a valid Sacrament of Baptism, so they are not Christians at all, not even Protestant Christians.

 

[Dan_Parker]

Jehovah’s Witnesses do not have a valid Sacrament of Baptism, so they are not Christians at all, not even Protestant Christians.

Thanks for your opinion, but this forum is for the discussion of Sacred Scripture. I am sorry but I will have to disregard your opinion unless you can back it up. Considering the dogmatic way you state this, I hope your proof is substantial.

 

[Mintaka]

What I’m seeing in the quotes of Justin Martyr and other Fathers, is a lack of understanding of typology, and equally of the metaphor as a figure of speech.

If I’m talking about stuff that other stuff stands for, I can say “the lion represents courage”, or I can say “the lion is courage”. The second one is the figure of speech called “metaphor”. It is shorter, more elegant, and more poetic than spelling every little thing out, assuming that my readers understand that figure of speech.

So let’s say I’m talking about the story of Samson, getting honey out of the lion’s mouth. I could say, “In the story, the lion’s mouth is a symbol of danger”, or I can say “the lion is danger”.

So let’s say I’m talking about Samson as a type of Christ. I can say “Samson grabbing honey out of the lion’s mouth was a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ pulling sinners out of Hell”. Or I can say, “Samson is Jesus Christ pulling sinners out of Hell”.

If you want to know what’s going on in an author’s mind, you have to read the whole context of a remark. You also have to realize that you use the structure “X is Y” in metaphors, as well as for actually identifying one thing as another.

So no, The true God and true man Jesus is not the guy named Jacob and Israel, and Israel is not a heavenly being. Israel foreshadows Jesus. Only in that sense can you say, “Israel is Jesus”; because it’s a more elegant way of saying, “Yeah, Israel is Jesus, see, because Jesus wrestled with Death, and that’s just like Jacob wrestling the angel, see. Although not exactly. It’s a foreshadowing. All that ‘type’ and ‘antitype’ stuff.”

 

[Dan_Parker]

What I’m seeing in the quotes of Justin Martyr and other Fathers, is a lack of understanding of typology, and equally of the metaphor as a figure of speech.

If I’m talking about stuff that other stuff stands for, I can say “the lion represents courage”, or I can say “the lion is courage”. The second one is the figure of speech called “metaphor”. It is shorter, more elegant, and more poetic than spelling every little thing out, assuming that my readers understand that figure of speech.

So let’s say I’m talking about the story of Samson, getting honey out of the lion’s mouth. I could say, “In the story, the lion’s mouth is a symbol of danger”, or I can say “the lion is danger”.

So let’s say I’m talking about Samson as a type of Christ. I can say “Samson grabbing honey out of the lion’s mouth was a foreshadowing of Jesus Christ pulling sinners out of Hell”. Or I can say, “Samson is Jesus Christ pulling sinners out of Hell”.

If you want to know what’s going on in an author’s mind, you have to read the whole context of a remark. You also have to realize that you use the structure “X is Y” in metaphors, as well as for actually identifying one thing as another.

So no, The true God and true man Jesus is not the guy named Jacob and Israel, and Israel is not a heavenly being. Israel foreshadows Jesus. Only in that sense can you say, “Israel is Jesus”; because it’s a more elegant way of saying, “Yeah, Israel is Jesus, see, because Jesus wrestled with Death, and that’s just like Jacob wrestling the angel, see. Although not exactly. It’s a foreshadowing. All that ‘type’ and ‘antitype’ stuff.”

The wikipedia says: A Metaphor is a figure of speech concisely comparing two things, saying that one is the other.

I am a bit unclear why someone who is extolling the virtues and greatness of someone would use a metaphor and compare them to a much lower being or someone of a much lower rank. That sounds like an insult to me. In this example, it is a bit like saying to a General via metaphor that he is a Sergeant.

 

[matahari]

The wikipedia says: A Metaphor is a figure of speech concisely comparing two things, saying that one is the other.

I am a bit unclear why someone who is extolling the virtues and greatness of someone would use a metaphor and compare them to a much lower being or someone of a much lower rank. That sounds like an insult to me. In this example, it is a bit like saying to a General via metaphor that he is a Sergeant.

---

This is as foundational as is possible.
In Matt.16:13 Jesus asks " Who do men say the Son of Man is ?"

Imagine him asking you this question
What would your answer be ?
So please answer
Do You believe he is Divine as in God ] with the nature of God ?
Everything hinges on your answer to this question
Just as it did with Peter.

Thanks, Tonette

 

[Dan_Parker]

---

This is as foundational as is possible.
In Matt.16:13 Jesus asks " Who do men say the Son of Man is ?"

Imagine him asking you this question
What would your answer be ?
So please answer
Do You believe he is Divine as in God ] with the nature of God ?
Everything hinges on your answer to this question
Just as it did with Peter.

Thanks, Tonette

I would respond as did Peter.

NAB Matthew 16:13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, )others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter said in reply, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

Why do you answer differently than Peter?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Dan:
No, Jehovah’s Witnesses don’t teach that when Jesus was on earth he was Michael. We view this as the name of the Son both before he became flesh and after he was resurrected.

I have no idea what Wesley taught on the subject other than what I quoted you. Perhaps you can research this and let me know what you find out. However, Wesley did say that Michael was the Messiah which means Christ.

I understand how that would be compelling - provided that it accurately expresses Wesley’s true thought about Jesus and Michael being one and the same. Otherwise, pulling that quote out of context might be misleading, don’t you think?

Just to make sure I’m clear…JW’s believe that Michael existed in heaven, then became Jesus on earth, and is now Michael again in heaven, correct?

One being who is/was/is Michael/Jesus/Michael - in that order?

 

[Randy_Carson]

I would respond as did Peter.
NAB Matthew 16:13 When Jesus went into the region of Caesarea Philippi he asked his disciples, “Who do people say that the Son of Man is?” 14 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist, )others Elijah, still others Jeremiah or one of the prophets.” 15 He said to them, “But who do you say that I am?” 16 Simon Peter said in reply, “**You are the Messiah, the Son of the living **God.”
Why do you answer differently than Peter?

We wouldn’t.

The challenge is that what you mean by “Son of the Living God” is not the same thing that other people mean by that phrase.

Many people would say that Jesus is the second person of the Blessed Trinity - you would say that Jesus is actually Michael the Archangel. So, while you use words that sound orthodox enough, the meaning behind the words is very different from what Christians typically understand.

Regarding the trinity, consider this: We can agree that a rock is one being with no persons, can we not? Additionally, there would be no disagreement that I am one person with one being, would there? So, what prevents God from being one being with three persons?

On a purely theoretical level, of course, there is nothing that PREVENTS God from being a single being with three persons since the number or persons that a being may have is not fixed as demonstrated above.

 

[Dan_Parker]

We wouldn’t.

The challenge is that what you mean by “Son of the Living God” is not the same thing that other people mean by that phrase.

Many people would say that Jesus is the second person of the Blessed Trinity - you would say that Jesus is actually Michael the Archangel. So, while you use words that sound orthodox enough, the meaning behind the words is very different from what Christians typically understand.

Regarding the trinity, consider this: We can agree that a rock is one being with no persons, can we not? Additionally, there would be no disagreement that I am one person with one being, would there? So, what prevents God from being one being with three persons?

On a purely theoretical level, of course, there is nothing that PREVENTS God from being a single being with three persons since the number or persons that a being may have is not fixed as demonstrated above.

I thought you were making an argument. At this point the burden is on you to support your inference that “Son of the Living God” is defined by bible writers in a way that is inconsistent with my view of the term. You don’t define what this is or identify the anonymous “other people” who think this or that. And now you say that theoretically God could be one being with three persons!

Are you going to make an argument or merely pretend to make one

 

[Dan_Parker]

I understand how that would be compelling - provided that it accurately expresses Wesley’s true thought about Jesus and Michael being one and the same. Otherwise, pulling that quote out of context might be misleading, don’t you think?

Just to make sure I’m clear…JW’s believe that Michael existed in heaven, then became Jesus on earth, and is now Michael again in heaven, correct?

One being who is/was/is Michael/Jesus/Michael - in that order?

Nothing that technical or mysterious. We merely consider it like the title “the Word” which is applied to the Son when he is in heaven and not when he was on the earth. Of course, as I mentioned, this is a minor doctrine on which we are not dogmatic and also not the foundation for any other doctrine.

 

[Randy_Carson]

I thought you were making an argument. At this point the burden is on you to support your inference that “Son of the Living God” is defined by bible writers in a way that is inconsistent with my view of the term. You don’t define what this is or identify the anonymous “other people” who think this or that. And now you say that theoretically God could be one being with three persons!

Are you going to make an argument or merely pretend to make one

I thought I was pretty clear, but I’ll try again. I’ll take this one step at a time.

Step 1
One group of people says that the Son of God means that Jesus is God.

Another group says that “Son of God” does not mean that Jesus is God since they believe that Jesus was really Michael the Archangel, and they refer to him as the “Son of God” because “the first spirit person God made was like a firstborn son to him” (1982 Watchtower booklet, Enjoy Life on Earth Forever!, p. 14).

Are we in agreement that these two different understandings about the phrase “Son of Man” exist?

Step 2
The group that says that Jesus is God would agree with Peter when he said, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” Peter understood that Jesus was God and not merely an incarnation of Michael. Therefore, that group would not answer any differently when asked, “Who do you say the Son of Man is?” That is the answer to your question posed earlier.

Now, I asked about Michael/Jesus/Michael - you did not answer directly. I understand that this is a minor point in JW teaching, but I am still interested in purusing truth. Therefore, is my understanding correct? He was Michael, became Jesus on earth, and is now Michael in heaven again?

Finally, I asked if there is anything that prevents God from being three-persons in one being since the number of persons in a single being is not fixed. You did not answer. Is a trinity at least *theoretically *possible?

 

[Dan_Parker]

I thought I was pretty clear, but I’ll try again. I’ll take this one step at a time.

Step 1
One group of people says that the Son of God means that Jesus is God.

Another group says that “Son of God” does not mean that Jesus is God since they believe that Jesus was really Michael the Archangel, and they refer to him as the “Son of God” because “the first spirit person God made was like a firstborn son to him” (1982 Watchtower booklet, Enjoy Life on Earth Forever!, p. 14).

Are we in agreement that these two different understandings about the phrase “Son of Man” exist?

Step 2
The group that says that Jesus is God would agree with Peter when he said, “**You are the Messiah, the Son of the living **God.” Peter understood that Jesus was God and not merely an incarnation of Michael. Therefore, that group would not answer any differently when asked, “Who do you say the Son of Man is?” That is the answer to your question posed earlier.

Now, I asked about Michael/Jesus/Michael - you did not answer directly. I understand that this is a minor point in JW teaching, but I am still interested in purusing truth. Therefore, is my understanding correct? He was Michael, became Jesus on earth, and is now Michael in heaven again?

Finally, I asked if there is anything that prevents God from being three-persons in one being since the number of persons in a single being is not fixed. You did not answer. Is a trinity at least *theoretically *possible?

Dan:
You are still clear as mud, to me. Sorry. How about making a real argument, not a theoretical one? That might make more sense to me. It does not matter who thinks what unless it is one of the inspired bible writers teaching it in context.