For which Jehovah should we witness?

[dakoski]

Jesus claimed to be the sent one from Jehovah (i.e. the angel of Jehovah as angel means ‘sent one’) e.g. Matt 10:40, 15:24, 21:37; Mark 9:37, 12:6; Luke 4:18, 4:43, 9:48, 10:16.; John 3:34, 4:34, 5:23, 5:24, 5:30, 5:36, 5:37, 5;38, 6:38, 6:44, 6:57, 7:16 etc. He also claimed to be the unique revelation of Jehovah: ‘No one knows the Father but the Son and those to whom he chooses to reveal him.’ (Matt 11:27)

The angel of Jehovah is a central figure throughout the Hebrew Scriptures (e.g. Genesis chapters 16, 18-19, 21, 24, 28, 31, 48; Exodus 3, 23, 24, 28, 31, 32, 33-34; Numbers 22; Judges 2, 5, 6, 13 etc.). He is the unique revelation of Jehovah, both referred to as Jehovah but also distinguished from Jehovah in the heavens who no one may see and live. There are a vast number of references where the angel of Jehovah is addressed as Jehovah so there’s only space for a few key examples but we can work through as many as you wish:

1) Gen 18-19.
18:1 makes clear Jehovah appears to Abraham. 19:1 clarifies that of the three people who visit Abraham two of these were angels who are then sent to Sodom. The person left with Abraham continues to be addressed as Jehovah (e.g. 18:20, 22, 26) by Abraham and the narrator. Then the angel of Jehovah leaves Abraham (18:33) and goes to Sodom to destroy the city: "By the time Lot reached Zoar, the sun had risen over the land. Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah—from the Lord out of the heavens." (Gen 19:23-24)

Of course the word translated Lord here is Jehovah. Even more interesting is that the person who speaks with Abraham and who goes down to Sodom is addressed as Jehovah and is distinguished from another person in the heavens also addressed as Jehovah. This is found in the JW’s NWT as well as all other translations

2) Exodus 33. This passage similarly distinguishes between a person addressed as Jehovah who spoke regularly with Moses face to face (v11) and another person also addressed as Jehovah who no one may see face to face and live (v20). Again this is found in the JW’s NWT as well as all other translations.

Questions for debate:
1) Do you think Jesus was claiming to be the angel of Jehovah mentioned in the Old Testament?

2) Do you agree that the angel of Jehovah was referred to as Jehovah, yet distinguished from Jehovah in the heavens? If not, what do you think these passages are teaching?

3) What is the significance of the angel of Jehovah being addressed as Jehovah:

a) Does it just reflect that the angel of Jehovah as ambassador was speaking on behalf of Jehovah but was not actually Jehovah? If this was common practice, wouldn’t we expect to see many examples of other ambassadors of Jehovah being referred to as Jehovah? Was any other angel, prophet, or messenger referred to as Jehovah?

b) Does it reflect that Jehovah is not a single person God? But rather that Jehovah in the heavens has always sent another person, who equally bears the divine name Jehovah, as a mediator with humanity?

[JehovahsWitness]

Only the angel of Jehovah is called Jehovah.

That angel must have been thus called because he REPRESENTED Jehovah, not because there are two "Jehovahs" because:

• #1 Obviously the angel of Jehovah is not JEHOVAH because "of" means belonging to Jehovah. You can't belong to Jehovah and BE Jehovah.
  
  #2 Someone that belongs to ie is the "property" of another cannot be equal to his owner so this second person cannot be ALMIGHTY anyway.
  
  #3 Jehovah is never refered to as an angel, indeed the bible says Jehovah CREATED the angels so since the angel of Jehovah is... an angel, and Jehovah created all the angels then the angel of Jehovah by definition of being "an angel" is a created being. Since Jehoavh isn't a created being they cannot therefore be the same person nor can the angel be Almighty God (who is by definition uncreated)
  
  4 # Refering to someone as Jehovah doesn't necessarily mean they are Jehovah ( if someone called me the queen of England does that mean I am her?) .

CONCLUSION Given the above, and in the absence of any scripture that explicitly state duality of person regarding YHWH/ Jehovah the most reasonable conclusion is that the angel is refered to as Jehovah because he REPRESENTED that One not because there are two Jehovahs

[dakoski]

[Replying to post 21 by JehovahsWitness]

Obviously the angel of Jehovah is not JEHOVAH because "of" means belonging to Jehovah. You can't belong to Jehovah and BE Jehovah.

Circular reasoning, "Jehovah is a single person, if more than one person is referred to as Jehovah then one of them can't be Jehovah."

I prefer to let Scripture determine whether Jehovah is a single person or not. Since Scripture addresses the angel of Jehovah as Jehovah, you are choosing to place yourself over Scripture and to disagree with Scripture. That's your choice.

Someone that belongs to ie is the "property" of another cannot be equal to his owner so this second person cannot be ALMIGHTY anyway.

Angel of Jehovah means the messenger of Jehovah. I as a human sometimes send human messangers - does that make them 'my property' and less human than me?

Refering to someone as Jehovah doesn't necessarily mean they are Jehovah, if someone called me the queen of England does that mean I am her?

If you are not Queen Elizabeth II then the person referring to you as the Queen of England would be mistaken. Since the Scripture refers to the angel of Jehovah as Jehovah, are you implying scripture is mistaken?

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 22 by dakoski]

Your reasoning is circular and is dismissed.

You are using your conclusion as an argumentation.


JW

[dakoski]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Your reasoning is circular and is dismissed.

You are using your conclusion as an argumentation.

Couple of points:

1) Editing your post after I've replied to you is at best ethically questionable, its more transparent to reply to me if you think I misunderstood you.

2) Would you like to show me where my reasoning is circular, rather than just assert it?

3) Do you have any responses to the questions I asked?

[JehovahsWitness]

Angel of Jehovah means the messenger of Jehovah. I as a human sometimes send human messangers - does that make them 'my property' and less human than me?

• You may be both human, but you would be two separate and different humans: One sent with a message ( the "sendee") , the other "the sender". (and presumed originator of said message). If an angel is a messenger, then the sender is by this definition NOT AN ANGEL.
  
  You also have one submitting to the authority of another, thus we have evidence to conclude they are not equal. The sender here exercising authority over the sendee.

By any definition (messenger"/ angel) you that thus have a demonstration of two separate individuals not one individual made up of two person's.

[JehovahsWitness]

Circular reasoning,

Would you like to show me where my reasoning is circular rather than assert it (see below)?

We can conclude the angel REPRESENTED Jehovah, for the following reasons:

• #1 Possession: Obviously the angel of Jehovah is not JEHOVAH because "of" means ownership or possession . For example "the husband of Sarah", would be "the husband that belongs to Sarah" ie the husband that she has. The expression itself indicates Sarah is a different individual to "the husband". Thus "the angel OF Jehovah" is distinct person, separate and different from the individual (JEHOVAH) to which he belongs. Sarah is not her husband, her husband is not Sarah. Jehovah is not his "angel", his angel is not JEHOVAH". Whom they are is in the name.
  
  #2 Jehovah is never refered to as an angel, indeed the bible says Jehovah CREATED the angels so since the angel of Jehovah is... an angel, and Jehovah created all the angels then the angel of Jehovah by definition of being "an angel" is a created being. Since Jehoavh isn't a created being they cannot therefore be the same person nor can the angel be Almighty God (who is by definition uncreated)
  
  #3 Angel: An angel is a messenger. Angel of Jehovah means the messenger of Jehovah. The designation "Angel of Jehovah" itself thus denotes two separate individuals one sent with a message ( the "sendee") , the other "the sender". (and presumed originator of said message). If an angel is a messenger, then the sender[/u cannot be described as AN ANGEL .
  
  #4. The bible indicates Jehovah CREATED the angels, thus if an individual is described as an angel it is being implied that one is a created being. Since an omnipotent (Almighty) God cannot by definitiin be a created being he must be seoerate and apart from znyone describes an "angel"
  
  # 5 Authority. The act of sending someone (as opposed to a mutual agreement between equala as to who should go) is by definition an exercise of authority of one or more individuals over another separate and distinct individual. One does not send oneself, one decides (or two equals can agree on a given action) but the submission to being sent is an expression that one has more authority over another. Thus we have evidence to conclude form the designation alone ("angel" ie messenger ie one sent with a message) that the the sender (Jehovah) and the sender (The angel) are not equal. If one God is made up of two person's then the two persons would have to be equal. Ergo the designation "angel of Jehovah" cannot refer to Almighty God.
  
  6 # Refering to someone as Jehovah doesn't necessarily mean they are Jehovah ( if someone called me the queen of England does that mean I am her?) .

CONCLUSION Given the above, and in the absence of any scripture that explicitly state duality of person regarding YHWH/ Jehovah the most reasonable conclusion is that the angel is refered to as Jehovah because he REPRESENTED that One not because there are two Jehovahs

]

[dakoski]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

You may be both human, but you would be two separate and different humans: One sent with a message ( the "sendee") , the other "the sender". (and presumed originator of said message). If an angel is a messenger, then the sender is by this definition NOT AN ANGEL.

You also have one submitting to the authority of another, thus we have evidence to conclude they are not equal. The sender here exercising authority over the sendee.


By any definition (messenger"/ angel) you that thus have a demonstration of two separate individuals not one individual made up of two person's.

Yes I agree with you, the person I am sending:
- is a distinct person from me
-has a distinct role from me

Where I disagree is that:
- they are not my possession
-I don't consider them sub-human

[dakoski]

Circular reasoning,

Would you like to show me where my reasoning is circular rather than assert it (see below)?

That angel must have been thus called because he REPRESENTED Jehovah, for the following reasons:

• #1 Possession: Obviously the angel of Jehovah is not JEHOVAH because "of" means ownership or possession . For example "the husband of Sarah", would be "the husband that belongs to Sarah" ie the husband that she has. The expression itself indicates Sarah is a different individual to "the husband"
  
  #2 Jehovah is never refered to as an angel, indeed the bible says Jehovah CREATED the angels so since the angel of Jehovah is... an angel, and Jehovah created all the angels then the angel of Jehovah by definition of being "an angel" is a created being. Since Jehoavh isn't a created being they cannot therefore be the same person nor can the angel be Almighty God (who is by definition uncreated)
  
  #3 Angel: An angel is a messenger. Angel of Jehovah means the messenger of Jehovah. The designation "Angel of Jehovah" itself thus denotes two separate individuals one sent with a message ( the "sendee") , the other "the sender". (and presumed originator of said message). If an angel is a messenger, then the sender[/u cannot be described as AN ANGEL .
  
  #4. The bible indicates Jehovah CREATED the angels, thus if an individual is described as an angel it is being implied that one is a created being. Since an omnipotent (Almighty) God cannot by definitiin be a created being he must be seoerate and apart from znyone describes an "angel"
  
  # 5 Authority. The act of sending someone (as opposed to a mutual agreement between equala as to who should go) is by definition an exercise of authority of one or more individuals over another separate and distinct individual. One does not send oneself, one decides (or two equals can agree on a given action) but the submission to being sent is an expression that one has more authority over another. Thus we have evidence to conclude form the designation alone ("angel" ie messenger ie one sent with a message) that the the sender (Jehovah) and the sender (The angel) are not equal. If one God is made up of two person's then the two persons would have to be equal. Ergo the designation "angel of Jehovah" cannot refer to Almighty God.
  
  6 # Refering to someone as Jehovah doesn't necessarily mean they are Jehovah ( if someone called me the queen of England does that mean I am her?) .

CONCLUSION Given the above, and in the absence of any scripture that explicitly state duality of person regarding YHWH/ Jehovah the most reasonable conclusion is that the angel is refered to as Jehovah because he REPRESENTED that One not because there are two Jehovahs

]

Couple of points:

1) Your confusing modalism with Trinitarianism - I don't think the Father is the same person as the Son, nor am I aware of any other Trinitarian that thinks that.

2) You'll have to work a bit harder - that doesn't show my reasoning is circular. It just shows you disagree with my conclusions. I've presented my conclusions straight from Scripture, whereas as far as I can see you haven't cited one Scripture.

[JehovahsWitness]

1) Your confusing modalism with Trinitarianism - I don't think the Father is the same person as the Son, nor am I aware of any other Trinitarian that thinks that.

I don't care about the trinity. I do care about the bible. The point is that there is no biblical reason to conclude that "The angel of Jehovah" is a second Jehovah. See reasons below. If you have any scriptures to refute the reasoning below feel free to submit it.

• #1 Possession: Obviously the angel of Jehovah is not JEHOVAH because ... "of" means ownership or possession . For example "the husband of Sarah", would be "the husband that belongs to Sarah" ie the husband that she has. The expression itself indicates Sarah is a different individual to "the husband". Thus "the angel OF Jehovah" is distinct person, separate and different from the individual ALMIGHTY GOD (JEHOVAH) to which he " belongs".
  • - Sarah is not her husband, her husband is not Sarah.
    - Almighty God is not his "angel", his angel is not Almighty God".
  #2 Angel: Jehovah is never refered to as an ange; , indeed the bible says Jehovah CREATED the angels so since the angel of Jehovah is... an angel, and Jehovah created all the angels then the angel of Jehovah by definition of being "an angel" is a created being. Since Jehoavh isn't a created being they cannot both lierally be JEHOVAH nor can the angel be Almighty God (who is by definition uncreated)
  
  #3 messenger: An angel is a messenger. Angel of Jehovah means the messenger of Jehovah. The designation "Angel of Jehovah" itself thus denotes two separate individuals one sent with a message ( the "sendee") , the other "the sender". (and presumed originator of said message). If an angel is a messenger, then the sender cannot be described as AN ANGEL[/b] .
  
  #4. Created: The bible indicates Jehovah CREATED the angels, thus if an individual is described as an angel it is being implied that one is a created being. Since an omnipotent (Almighty) God cannot by definitiin be a created being he must be seoerate and apart from znyone describes an "angel"
  
  # 5 Authority. The act of sending someone (as opposed to a mutual agreement between equala as to who should go) is by definition an exercise of authority of one or more individuals over another separate and distinct individual. One does not send oneself, one decides (or two equals can agree on a given action) but the submission to being sent is an expression that one has more authority over another. Thus we have evidence to conclude form the designation alone ("angel" ie messenger ie one sent with a message) that the the sender (Jehovah) and the sender (The angel) are not equal. If one God is made up of two person's then the two persons would have to be equal. Ergo the designation "angel of Jehovah" cannot refer to Almighty God.
  
  6 # Representation: Refering to someone as Jehovah doesn't necessarily mean they are Jehovah ( if someone called me the queen of England does that mean I am her?) . Although on occasions individuals addresses angels as "Jehovah" , there is no biblical reason to conclude they didn't do so as an expression of their respect to who these anfpgels represented rather than a belief there was more than one Almighty God

[dakoski]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

I don't care about the trinity. I do care about the bible. The point is that there is no biblical reason to conclude that "The angel of Jehovah" is a second Jehovah. See reasons below.

The argument you presented above was designed to refute something, right? What it was arguing against was modalism - since neither of us are modalist and we agree that the Bible doesn't teach modalism - then we are in agreement. But do you not think its a little odd that you're trying to refute a position neither of us hold? You may not care what position I take, I have no problem with that. But if you want to argue against my conclusions then you have to show from the Bible I'm wrong - setting up strawman arguments is not helpful.

The biblical reason to conclude that the angel of Jehovah is a second person that also shares the divine name Jehovah is because the Bible says so. That seems a very good reason to me. I can't see how the Bible could make it any more clearly than that.