This might seem like a silly question. Who, after all, has not heard of Jesus? But it's really not, considering there are so many different opinions of who Jesus really was. Was he the Messiah or Christ, was he the son of God, was he God himself? Was Jesus simply a prophet as many Muslims believe, or simply a decent human being? Did he even exist at all.
There are early historical references to Jesus, including The Jewish Antiquities by Jewish historian Josephus, which states in Book 20, Section 200, "James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ. Also The Complete Works of Tacitus by Tacitus, a Roman historian who lived later in the first century, which states in "The Annals," Book 15, paragraph 44, "Christus, from whom the name [Christian] had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus."
Alluding to early non-Christian historical references to Jesus, The New Encyclopedia Britannica states, "These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for te first time and on inadequate grounds by several authors at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries." (1976, Macropædia, Vol. 10, p. 145)
The Bible tells us that Jesus was God's only-begotten son (John 3:16), he was the chosen Messiah, and his death has bought mankind from sin and death. Some Christians believe that in addition to this, Jesus was God himself. Is this possibly true?
Consider that the Hebrew word "ab" and the Greek work "pater," both translated as "father" connote the idea of a giver of life. Thus, a father is someone who gives his son life. Also consider the term "only begotten son" found at John 3:16. What exactly does "only begotten" mean? It means the Father "begat," or gave life to the son. This means that Jehovah God gave life to Jesus, his son. In other words, Jehovah created Jesus. If this were not the case, then the whole idea of a father-son relationship between the Father and the Son would be nothing more than pretense. Ask yourself if it makes sense that Jehovah and Jesus would go to such lengths to pretend to be Father and Son. Not only is that notion absurd, since God is perfect, his nature would not even allow him to pretend to be something he is not.
To show Jesus is not God, consider John 3:17, "[...] that they may know You [the Father], the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent" (NKJV, emphasis added). Notice that the Father (identified in verse 1) is recognized by Jesus himself (who is being quoted) as the only true God, and recognizes himself (Jesus Christ) as separate from the Father. If the Father is the only true God, then logic dictates that the Son cannot also be the true God.
Jesus also refers to the Father as his God (John 20:17), but not once does the Bible ever refer to the Son as the God of the Father. The Bible also tells us that the Father is Greater than the Son (John 14:28). In fact, 1 Corinthians 11:3 states that "the head of Christ is God." If Jesus were God, this would mean that Jesus was his own head. This is not the structure that God laid out for families because this is not the type of structure that the Father has with the Son. One person is not head over himself, Jehovah God is head of Jesus Christ, his Son.
If it were true that Jehovah was God and that Jesus were God, then both would presumably have the same body of knowledge, since they are both God. The Bible contradicts this when it says, "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father" (Mark 13:32). God therefore knows the day and the hour, but Jesus does not, and hence Jesus cannot be God.
Consider Psalm 83:18, "That they may know that You, who name alone is [Jehovah], Are the Most High over all the earth." Jehovah alone is the most high over all the earth, and therefore has no equal, not even his own only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
John 1:1
Proponents of the Trinity doctrine just love to shout out John 1:1. Over and over and over again, the same line gets repeated as if it were the best most original thought they ever had, when it is in fact neither that good (convincing) nor original. Let's look at John 1:1 from various translations, and then look at the actual Greek:
"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." (KJV, NKJV, NIV)--This is the translation many use to prove the existence of God.
" [...] and the word was a god (The New testament, in An Improved Version, Upon the Basis of Archbishop Newcome's New Translation: With Corrected Text)
"[...] and a god was the word." (The Emphatic Diaglott, Benjamin Wilson)
"[...] and the Word was divine." (The Bible--An American Translation, J. M. P. Smith and E. J. Goodspeed)
"[...] and the Word was a god." (The New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures, NWT)--This should be the correct translation. Let's see why.
In the Greek, the passage reads:
Εν αρχη ην ο λογος και ο λογος ην προς τον θεον και θεος ην ο λογος
En arche en ho logos kai ho logos en pros ton theon kai theos en ho logos.
A literal word for word translation of the Greek reads: "In beginning was the word (ho logos) and the word was with the God (ton theon) and god (kai theos) was the word (ho logos)."
Notice the first word for God has a definite article (the--ton in Greek), and "the word" has a definite article (the--ho in Greek). The second occurrence of the word "god" appears without a definite article (the--ho or ton). Because Greek lacks an indefinite article (a word corresponding to the English word, "a" or "an," as in "a god) the lack of the definite article "the" means that the term should be rendered in English with an indefinite article.
Also take note that Isaiah 9:6 refers to the Messiah as "Mighty God," and "Eternal Father." As for the term "Eternal Father," even most trinitarians can accept that the Father and Son are two distinct people, but many argue that the fact that the Son is called "Eternal Father" is evidence that Jesus always existed and was not created. This is not true. The universe is also eternal, in the sense that it will never die (Ecclesiastes 1:4). This does not mean that it always existed, it simply means it WILL always exist into the future.
As for the Son being called "Mighty God," (El Gibbor in the Hebrew) truly Jesus is a "mighty god," but that does not mean that he is "God Almighty" (El Shaddai in the Hebrew). Jehovah God is also a "Mighty God," in fact being a "Mighty God" is pretty much a pre-requisite to being "God Almighty," but the reverse is not true, one does not have to be "God Almighty" to be a "Mighty God."
So does this mean there are multiple gods up in heaven? It depends on what you mean by the term "god." If you are referring to the creator of all things or someone who is all-powerful, there is only one person who fits either of those descriptions--Jehovah. However, god is used in the Bible to describe people in positions of great power or authority or with the ability to exert such power or authority. For example Psalm 82:6 refers to the judges of Israel as gods, indicating that they have a certain measure of authority; this does not mean, however, that the judges of Israel are the Creator of the universe or even all-powerful. All it means, as stated, is that they have a certain measure of authority. If the term "god" can be applied to the judges of Israel, mere humans, how much more appropriate would the term be when applied to Jesus?
If this is not enough to convince you that Jesus is not God, consider Col 1:15, which refers to Jesus as "the firstborn of every Creature" (KJV). The Bible itself explicitly states that Jesus was born, or created, before all other creations.
Who Is Michael the Archangel?
The term "archangel" in the Bible is never found in the plural, presumably because there can be only one archangel.
1 Thessalonians 4:16 describes Jesus descending from heaven "with the voice of an archangel." There is biblical evidence that reveals that it is not the big of a leap to associate Jesus with the archangel Michael. Indeed, Michael is identified as the heavenly persona of God's only-begotten Son.
Revelation 12:7-12 identifies Michael as the one to lead the army of angels in war against the Devil and to cast him out of heaven. Later, at Revelation 19:11-16, Jesus is identified as the one leading the army in an war against the nations of the world. The fact is, Jesus is the one with authority over the armies of heaven, and, as we shall see once we begin to learn more about the nature of the Kingdom of God, it is Jesus who has authority over the armies of angels. It is therefore, reasonable to conclude that Jesus is Michael, the archangel.
No comments:
Post a Comment