I have come to understand that the main difference between the Jehova’s Witnesses and “mainstream” Christianity is that Christianity is Trinitarian (Father, Son and Holy Spirit), whereas the Witnesses are Unitarian ('cause the word “trinity” appears nowhere in the Bible, y’know;)).
If Jesus Christ is not God The Son…what IS He?
I thought the point of non-Trinitarians was that, yes, Jesus was the Son of God…but that Jesus was not “God.” God begat Jesus, but God isn’t Jesus.
Some non-Trinitarians also dispute the pre-existence of Jesus, and suggest he was only created when born. The more traditional idea is that Jesus existed since the Creation, and only took on mortal form.
One of the more interesting non-Trinitarian verses in the Bible is the one where No one knows the day of the second coming, not even the son. Some theologians have said this is impossible, for Jesus, being God, knows everything God knows. (Harold Camping tried to interpret this verse as meaning Satan as “the son.” We know how well his system of interpretation worked out.)
Another non-Trinitarian verse is “The Father is greater than I.”
The Jehovah’s Witnesses have quite a number of heterodox beliefs; outside of faith, who is to say whether they’re right or wrong?
The Witnesses believe that Jesus is the Son of Jehovah God, Michael the Archangel who is Jehovah’s first creation and His only direct creation, for after Jehovah created Michael, they both created the rest of the universe.
FWIW, scriptural support for that position comes from Jude 9 (referring to Michael as the singular archangel); 1Thess 4:16 (the “Lord himself”–i.e. the resurrected Christ–returning to speak with “the archangel’s voice”); Rev 12:7 (Michael and “his angels” doing battle), coupled with Rev 19:14-16 (which speaks of Christ’s leading an army of angels); 2Thess 1:7 (also associating Jesus with “his angels”); and references in Matthew and 1Peter (further establishing Christ’s ownership/leadership of an angel posse.)
I haven’t taken a look at the Koine for those verses, so I can’t say with surety that the passages say precisely what the Witnesses claim they do. But that’s whence they derive the Michael == Jesus thing at any rate.
Shouldn’t you just start by reading thier literature?
(eta - two different pubications linked to above)
We could debate forever the validity of their teachings, etc - but the best way to ‘understand’ what they believe is to read their stuff.
Btw, John Calvin and Seventh-day Adventism’s Ellen G. White also held that Jesus is Michael, but also affirmed Him as God the Son, so Jesus-Michaelism is not necessarily anti-Trinitarian.
Huh. Thank you! Makes sense, I suppose…“Who is like God?”
Is there a debate here or are you just asking for a factual answer?
Nah, it was just rhetorical.
Ohhhh, you meant the OP. 
JW’s believe that Jesus is a god, but the only God is Jehovah. Yes, both are gods, but only Jehovah is God. But Jesus is a god. But there’s only one God, who is Jehovah.
Which makes sense when written but when spoken, ya really have to put the emphasis on God.
Btw, it’s during these discussions, I really miss raindog.
Which makes sense, except that lots of people generally use God when what they mean is god, alas.
(checking my driver’s license) ME!
Hello
I would point out first that “mainstream” thoughts on all kinds of things proved to be way way wrong. Modernity has many times caused society to scratch it’s collective head and said “we used to believe that?” I would also point out that the rejection of the Trinity goes way back. (Arynism?) JWs hardly invented it.
The rejection of the Trinity goes much further than the fact it’s not even hinted at in the OT or NT. The bible [figuratively] mocks the Trinity. Just as the concept of a burning hell has more to do with Dante, the concept of a Triune god goes back millennium; before Jesus.
Yet this pagan concept is rolled up into Christianity to the point that history, and he ignorance engenders, has imputed legitimacy to a vacant idea. I’ve asked rhetorically more than once “does your belief in the Trinity proceed from the texts”, or “Does your belief precede the texts?” In other words, would a person unfamiliar with the Trinity come to a Trinitarian conclusion? I submit vehemently no. A good example that has been proffered on this board more than once is in early Genesis where God says, “let us…” Does that even implicitly or explicitly support the Trinity? No! It simply says wasn’t alone; which doesn’t make sense to you only if you believe Jesus was created AFTER man. Or…it makes sense if you ALREADY believe in the Trinity and you’re looking for texts to support. (Ftr I was raised Trinitarian)
A great text is where Jesus says “the Father is greater than I”; but there are hundreds of texts (hundreds!) that explicitly show:1) Jesus was a different person, 2) there were things he didn’t know (but his Father did) 3) he had the capacity for a different will 4) he had the capacity (though he didn’t) to defy his Father 5) his Father was greater 6) he prayed to his Father 7) he never once (never once) directed his followers to pray to him but rather his Father 8) he only referred to himself as the Son, not God 9) he always clearly identified himself as subservient and inferior (always)
Who Jesus could not be one fragment clearer. Not one. He is the Son of God. He’s just who he says he is.
I submit its only the insanity of the Trinity belief that has us even asking the question for Jesus Et al make it clear from the giddy up.
(Hello gang)
Hello
I would point out first that “mainstream” thoughts on all kinds of things proved to be way way wrong. Modernity has many times caused society to scratch it’s collective head and said “we used to believe that?” I would also point out that the rejection of the Trinity goes way back. (Arynism?) JWs hardly invented it.
The rejection of the Trinity goes much further than the fact it’s not even hinted at in the OT or NT. The bible [figuratively] mocks the Trinity. Just as the concept of a burning hell has more to do with Dante, the concept of a Triune god goes back millennium; before Jesus.
Yet this pagan concept is rolled up into Christianity to the point that history, and he ignorance engenders, has imputed legitimacy to a vacant idea. I’ve asked rhetorically more than once “does your belief in the Trinity proceed from the texts”, or “Does your belief precede the texts?” In other words, would a person unfamiliar with the Trinity come to a Trinitarian conclusion? I submit vehemently no. A good example that has been proffered on this board more than once is in early Genesis where God says, “let us…” Does that even implicitly or explicitly support the Trinity? No! It simply says wasn’t alone; which doesn’t make sense to you only if you believe Jesus was created AFTER man. Or…it makes sense if you ALREADY believe in the Trinity and you’re looking for texts to support. (Ftr I was raised Trinitarian)
A great text is where Jesus says “the Father is greater than I”; but there are hundreds of texts (hundreds!) that explicitly show:1) Jesus was a different person, 2) there were things he didn’t know (but his Father did) 3) he had the capacity for a different will 4) he had the capacity (though he didn’t) to defy his Father 5) his Father was greater 6) he prayed to his Father 7) he never once (never once) directed his followers to pray to him but rather his Father 8) he only referred to himself as the Son, not God 9) he always clearly identified himself as subservient and inferior (always)
Who Jesus could not be one fragment clearer. Not one. He is the Son of God. He’s just who he says he is.
I submit its only the insanity of the Trinity belief that has us even asking the question for Jesus Et al make it clear from the giddy up.
(Hello gang)
Admin please delete double post.
bolding mine
The orthodox view is that Jesus has always existed one with the Father and Spirit.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, one in Being
with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
(New Missal)
I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial
with the Father;
Through him all things were made.
When you say “the orthodox view,” bear in mind that this view was not put together until difficult philosophical questions arose through heterodox beliefs in the second, third, and fourth centuries. Trinitarianism may be orthodox, but the JWs are right that it is post-Biblical, and personally I think they’re right that it’s pagan (i.e. influenced by substrate pre-Christian religious ideas in the Roman Empire).
+1
You are correct; my phrasing was wrong. The more traditional idea is that Jesus existed all along, as long as God existed. Not “since the creation” but “since before the creation.” I apologize for sloppy phrasing.