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?

[dakoski]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

No they are both equally human (Just as The Angel and The Almighty) are equally spirits; they are just not spirits with equal authority (just as the husband and wife don't have equal authority).

Your attempt to make your doctrine fit with the passage fails - because if according to your interpretation Jesus is a lesser god then that must mean women are lesser humans. Bible doesn't teach that - men and women are equally made in the image of God. But they do have distinct roles.

The passage clearly teaches that the Father and Son are equally Jehovah. The passages I've quoted in the Hebrew Scriptures confirm that too. But their roles are distinct.

[dakoski]

Couple of problems with your answer:

1) Scripture teaches that both Jehovah in the heavens who no one may see and live (the Father) and the angel of Jehovah (the Son) who people may see face to face (e.g. Abraham, Moses, Isaiah) are both Jehovah. See Genesis 18-19 and Exodus 33:11, 20.

Why is that a "problem" they are not the same person.

One "the husband" who submits to nobody (I think we can agree to call The Almighty") no human can see and live.

The other The Angel, (the one that is in a submissive position) like the wife, people can see.

To illustrate Imagine a man was a recluse and refused to speak to anyone. But since he was married he "sends" his wife to speak for him. Can we say it's a contradiction because we say No one can see the husband but we can see the wife that the husband sends with a message from the husband?

In the same way there is no contradiction, we cannot see the Almighty (The sender) but we can see his messenger (The Angel).

What exactly is the problem?

If you agree that the Father and the Son are distinct persons yet both Jehovah then I have absolutely no problem with your interpretation. Similarly, I have no problem with your interpretation that men and women are distinct and yet both fully human.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 141 by dakoski]

And the do the different role include one submitting himself to the other?

EPHESIANS 5:22

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands...

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Are you suggesting the biblical, view above illustrates the relationship between The Sender and the Angel?

Yes...

Do the different roles involve one out ranking the the other?

HEAD [

1.
chief; principal.
"the head waiter"
synonyms: chief, principal, leading, main, first, front, prime, premier, foremost, top, topmost, highest, supreme, pre-eminent, high-ranking, top-ranking, most important; More

1 Corinthians 11:3 (NIV)

.... the head of Christ is God

It seems to me you are attempting to blur the distinction between being of the same "species" with being of the same rank or position. This is like concentrating on the fact that both a Private and a General are both human because you don't want to recognize that one out ranks the other and they do not have the same AUTHORITY rank and position. Their roles are not just different one has a higher rank/position than the other

So I say: Yes the General and the Private are both equally human but they don't have the same AUTHORITY.

You reply: but they are both equally human

Yes they are both human, So? So WHAT?! Does that make them both equal? You repeat again and again that both 're human as if the fact that they are both of the same species means they must ergo be equal in rank, position and authority. You refuse to recognize, even to mention the simple fact of authority and rank even though the bible in using the words "submit" and "head" are implicit references to both.

JW

[JehovahsWitness]

If you agree that the Father and the Son are distinct persons yet both Jehovah then I have absolutely no problem with your interpretation.

We cannot say they are "Both Jehovah" we can only say that an angel on a mission agreed to be refered to as "Jehovah", we are not in a position to say more because the bible doesn't say any more. Is that angel addressed as "Jehovah" in heaven? .... the bible doesn't say. Does the Father call that angel "Jehovah" in heaven, the bible doesn't say.

What we do know is that that angel (however he is called in heaven) submits to the Father and is of a lower rank and has less authority than his Father and only does what he is told to do or instructed to do.

Agreed?

[dakoski]

[Replying to post 141 by dakoski]

And the do the different role include one submitting himself to the other?

EPHESIANS 5:22

Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands...

[Replying to JehovahsWitness]

Are you suggesting the biblical, view above illustrates the relationship between The Sender and the Angel?

Yes...

Do the different roles involve one out ranking the the other?

HEAD [

1.
chief; principal.
"the head waiter"
synonyms: chief, principal, leading, main, first, front, prime, premier, foremost, top, topmost, highest, supreme, pre-eminent, high-ranking, top-ranking, most important; More

1 Corinthians 11:3 (NIV)

.... the head of Christ is God

It seems to me you are attempting to blur the distinction between being of the same "species" with being of the same rank or position. This is like concentrating on the fact that both a Private and a General are both human because you don't want to recognize that one out ranks the other and they do not have the same AUTHORITY rank and position. Their roles are not just different one has a higher rank/position than the other

So I say: Yes the General and the Private are both equally human but they don't have the same AUTHORITY.

You reply: but they are both equally human

Yes they are both human, So? So WHAT?! Does that make them both equal? You repeat again and again that both 're human as if the fact that they are both of the same species means they must ergo be equal in rank, position and authority. You refuse to recognize, even to mention the simple fact of authority and rank even though the bible in using the words "submit" and "head" are implicit references to both.

JW

You've misunderstood and trying to claim I'm also only applying one aspect of the verse. As I’ve said multiple times 1 Cor 11:3 makes two points in its analogy comparing the relationship between the Father and the Son with men and women:

1) In the same way that men and women are equally human so the Father and the Son are equally YHWH

2) Just as men and women have different roles so do the Father and the Son

As far as I can see you are only affirming 2) but refuse to accept 1). You equivocate by saying the Father and Son are spirits, where one is God and one is a lesser god. But then try to argue men and women are both human in the same way. The problem is the analogy doesn’t work – if you want to also affirm that men and women are equally human. According to your assumption, the relationship being described is between lesser beings.

Therefore either:

a) the Father and the Son are equally YHWH in the same way that men and women are equally human. This is consistent with Scripture (Exodus 33, Genesis 18-19 etc) where both Father and Son are equally YHWH but yet have distinct roles. In the same way that men and women are equally human and equally made in the image of God yet have distinct roles.

b) The Father is relating to a lesser being (a lesser god), therefore the man must also be relating to a less being (a lesser human). This of course contradicts all of Scripture since men and women equally are made in the image of God, women are not less human than men.

[dakoski]

If you agree that the Father and the Son are distinct persons yet both Jehovah then I have absolutely no problem with your interpretation.

We cannot say they are "Both Jehovah" we can only say that an angel on a mission agreed to be refered to as "Jehovah", we are not in a position to say more because the bible doesn't say any more. Is that angel addressed as "Jehovah" in heaven? .... the bible doesn't say. Does the Father call that angel "Jehovah" in heaven, the bible doesn't say.

What we do know is that that angel (however he is called in heaven) submits to the Father and is of a lower rank and has less authority than his Father and only does what he is told to do or instructed to do.

Agreed?

Arguments from silence are rarely useful. There is absolutely no Biblical justification for the conclusion you draw. If it was so important for us to conclude the the angel of Jehovah was called Jehovah only on earth and not in heaven then the Bible would have provided us with that information. Since it does not make such a distinction we can simply dismiss your conclusion as unsupported speculation.

[JehovahsWitness]

That doesn't answer the question, I asked....

What we do know is that that angel (however he is called in heaven) submits to the Father and is of a lower rank and has less authority than his Father and only does what he is told to do or instructed to do.

Agreed?

Agreed?

[Elijah John]

.... the Father and the Son are equally YHWH .....

Doesn't the Father have a name all His own? If not, what name does Jesus allude to when he says "hallowed be thy name"?

Isn't the implication of the LORD's prayer that the Father has a name all His own?

People seldom refer to themselves as "thy", even when they have a habit of refering to themselves in the third person.

And sane people do not address prayers to themselves.

[dakoski]

[Replying to post 147 by JehovahsWitness]

That doesn't answer the question, I asked....

I answered the same question (or a variation of it) in post 145, I refer you to that response.

[JehovahsWitness]

[Replying to post 148 by dakoski]

No you did not. Please refer to the specific points in post # 147 you have yet to address, namely authority and rank.


Thank you in advance.

JW