Did Jesus create the angels?

Mal 3:1- "Behold, I send my messenger to prepare the way before me,
and Jehovah whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple;
the ANGEL of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming,
says Jehovah of hosts.
2- But who can endure the day of his coming,
and who can stand when he appears?"

Gal 4: 14-
and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.

Jesus was the GREATEST of all God's Messengers ("Angels').
 

jamesh

Well-known member
Mal 3:1- "Behold, I send my messenger to prepare the way before me,
and Jehovah whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple;
the ANGEL of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming,
says Jehovah of hosts.
2- But who can endure the day of his coming,
and who can stand when he appears?"

Gal 4: 14-
and though my condition was a trial to you, you did not scorn or despise me, but received me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus.

Jesus was the GREATEST of all God's Messengers ("Angels').
Excuse me justhefacts, I want to make "CLEAR" that Jesus Christ is "NOT" an actual angel nor is He Michael the archangel. You miss understood my position. The following is what I said:

When was Jesus created?​

"God created Jesus before creating Adam. In fact, God created Jesus and then used him to make everything else, including the angels. That is why the Bible calls Jesus “the firstborn of all creation” by God.—Read Colossians 1:15, 16.

I'm quoting what the JW's teach, not what I teach or believe. Jesus Christ is God Almighty in the flesh and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being, that would include the angels. John 1:3.

It's rather obvious to me that you do not understand that the Jewish word for angel in the Old Testament is "malak." This word simply means "messenger." Since you quoted Malachi 3:1 I will be glad to explain it to you.

"Behold, I am going to send My "malak/angel/messenger," and he will clear the way before Me. (Who's the Me?). And the Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come to His temple; (Who's the Lord that will come to His temple?) and the "malak/angel/messenger" of the covenant, (Who's the messenger of the covenant and where is this covenant found in the OT?) in whom you delight, (Who do you think we are going to be delighted to see?) behold, He is coming," (Who is the one coming?) says the Lord of hosts." (Who do you think is the Lord of hosts?)

Mark 1:1-4 identifies the "malak/angel/messenger" that clears the way of the Lord is none other than John the Baptist. And John is not an angel, he's a messenger who prepares the way of Jesus Christ, you know, the one who is coming to "HIS" temple and the one in whom we will be delighted to see.

The "malak/angel/messenger" of the covenant is God/the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ. Isaiah 40:3, "A voice is calling, Clear the way for the Lord in the wilderness; Make smooth in the desert a highway FOR OUR GOD." Judges 2:1, "Now the angel of the Lord came up from Gilgal to Bochim. And he said, "I brought you up out of Egypt and led you into the land which I HAVE SWORN TO YOUR FATHERS; AND SAID I WILL NEVER BREAK MY COVENANT."

So where did the angel of the Lord swear to Abraham the covenant? Genesis 22:15-18, "The the angel of the Lord called to Abraham a second time from heaven, vs16, and said, "By Myself I have sworn, DECLARES THE LORD, because (or why) you have done this thing, and not withheld your son, your only son, (was Isaac Abraham's only son?) vs17, indeed I will greatly bless you, and I will greatly multiply your seed as the stars of the heavens, and as the sand which is on the seashore; and your seed shall possess the gate of their enemies."

So, it was the angel/messenger of the Lord who swore the oath or confirmed the covenant to Abraham. It is impossible that the angel of the Lord/the pre-incarnate Jesus Christ is an actual angel or even Michael the arc angel. The reason is because angels CANNOT swear oaths on behalf of God Himself. Hebrews 6:13-14 confirms this. "For when God make the promise to Abraham, since He could swear by no one greater, HE SWORE BY HIMSELF, vs14, saying, I will surely bless you, and I will surely multiply you." I highly suggest you rethink you position and study your Bible.

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 
Mal 3:2- But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears?"

So, you await the second coming of.... John the Baptist?
 

jamesh

Well-known member
Who told you this is referring to the second coming? Read the context starting from vs 1 where it's obvious this refers to the incarnation of Jesus Christ the Lord God who prepares the way of Him. Then at verse 2 the very first word is "But." This word is used to introduce a phrase or clause contrasting with what has already been mentioned, i.e. verse 1.

Vs2, But who may abide the day of His coming? This is a rhetorical question to make a point rather than get an answer. Who may abide the day of His/Jesus Christ coming? Only they who shall believe on his name; for they that will not believe on His name shall be blinded. At vs3 the sons of Levi are those who minister in their stead under the NEW COVENANT, because the OLD Levitical institutions shall be aboished.

Under the preaching of our Lord a great number of the priests became obedient to the faith. Acts 6:7, "And the word of God kept on spreading; and the number of the disciples continued to increase greatly in Jerusalem, AND A GREAT NUMBER OF PRIEST WERE BECOMING OBEDIENT TO THE FAITH."

Do you want me to continue giving you the context or are you willing to open your eyes to what the Scriptures are teaching rather than cling to heretical position, you choose? Is John the Baptist the second coming? Ugh! Wake up buster.

IN GOD THE SON,
james
 

Nathan P

Active member
Nope. Jesus isn't an angel. An angel would never dare declare for itself what Christ declares for Himself in John 14:8-9.
It has been proven many times Jesus was only an angel. Since John was told about the scroll in revelations and since only Jesus was worthy to know what was in the scroll after he took it from the Father rev. 5: 1-10 or 11 and it is an angel telling John about the scroll , then that means the angel telling John about the scroll has to be Jesus because only Jesus is worthy to tell anyone that information.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
It has been proven many times Jesus was only an angel. Since John was told about the scroll in revelations and since only Jesus was worthy to know what was in the scroll after he took it from the Father rev. 5: 1-10 or 11 and it is an angel telling John about the scroll , then that means the angel telling John about the scroll has to be Jesus because only Jesus is worthy to tell anyone that information.
The term "angel" means "messenger", but to them claim that Jesus was only a messenger is to ignore most of scripture. He was much more than just a messenger which is why Christ can't be just a messenger.
 

Nathan P

Active member
The term "angel" means "messenger", but to them claim that Jesus was only a messenger is to ignore most of scripture. He was much more than just a messenger which is why Christ can't be just a messenger.
You are trying to skirt the issue and that is only Jesus was worthy to know what was in the scroll after it was taken from the Father which means that the angel telling John about the scroll has to be Jesus. Now prove who else could have been worthy to tell John about the scroll and document it, or the only conclusion reasonably anyone can come to is the angel telling John about the scroll had to have been Jesus.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
You are trying to skirt the issue and that is only Jesus was worthy to know what was in the scroll after it was taken from the Father
I'm not skirting the issue at all. I'm simply pointing out that messenger is not the only role Christ has. If I'm reading your posts correctly, you're using this term to denote a type of creature whereas, I'm pointing out that the term is not restricted to that idea, but is primarily used to describe messengers.
which means that the angel telling John about the scroll has to be Jesus.
Perhaps, I'm not convinced though. I'd have to look it over again. There are a number of place in the bible where we see "an angel of the Lord" saying something, and then in the next verse it will say, "and the Lord said...", indicating that they are perhaps effectively one and the same, e.g. "when you have seen the son, you have seen the father" can be extended to include, "when you have seen an angel of the Lord, you have seen God" etc.
Now prove who else could have been worthy to tell John about the scroll and document it, or the only conclusion reasonably anyone can come to is the angel telling John about the scroll had to have been Jesus.
Again, my memory isn't clear so I will have to look at it again, my recollection is that there is much that isn't revealed. I might be getting it mixed up with Daniel or some other old testament prophet's vision.
 

Nathan P

Active member
I'm not skirting the issue at all. I'm simply pointing out that messenger is not the only role Christ has. If I'm reading your posts correctly, you're using this term to denote a type of creature whereas, I'm pointing out that the term is not restricted to that idea, but is primarily used to describe messengers.

Perhaps, I'm not convinced though. I'd have to look it over again. There are a number of place in the bible where we see "an angel of the Lord" saying something, and then in the next verse it will say, "and the Lord said...", indicating that they are perhaps effectively one and the same, e.g. "when you have seen the son, you have seen the father" can be extended to include, "when you have seen an angel of the Lord, you have seen God" etc.

Again, my memory isn't clear so I will have to look at it again, my recollection is that there is much that isn't revealed. I might be getting it mixed up with Daniel or some other old testament prophet's vision.
Just remember to document who other than Jesus was worthy to know what was in the scroll or Jesus is the angel who told John about the scroll?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
Just remember to document who other than Jesus was worthy to know what was in the scroll or Jesus is the angel who told John about the scroll?
The book begins with, "The revelation of Jesus Christ...etc." so I'm not sure where you get this idea that Jesus has to be an angel (creature) rather than the more accurate idea of messenger. Why not just go with the flow of the text rather than inject these doctrines which only detract from the message?
 

Nathan P

Active member
The book begins with, "The revelation of Jesus Christ...etc." so I'm not sure where you get this idea that Jesus has to be an angel (creature) rather than the more accurate idea of messenger. Why not just go with the flow of the text rather than inject these doctrines which only detract from the message?
I explained it very clearly that since only Jesus is worthy to know what is in the scroll after it is taken from the Father rev. 5: 1-10 or 11 and since an angel tells John about the scroll, then that means the angel who told John about the scroll had to have been Jesus because only Jesus is worthy to tell anyone that information. Again anyone who says otherwise has to document who other than Jesus was worthy to know what was in the scroll? Meaning until someone can document who other than Jesus was worthy to know about the scroll the only candidate who the angel could have been is Jesus.
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
I explained it very clearly that since only Jesus is worthy to know what is in the scroll after it is taken from the Father rev. 5: 1-10 or 11 and since an angel tells John about the scroll, then that means the angel who told John about the scroll had to have been Jesus because only Jesus is worthy to tell anyone that information.
And then John reveals it to anyone else who decides to read John's Revelation so just because you come up with this claim, it doesn't then follow because EVERYONE now knows, and yet this is a prophecy of what is to come, correct???
Again anyone who says otherwise has to document who other than Jesus was worthy to know what was in the scroll?
According to you logic, we're all worthy because we all already know what's in the scroll even though none of this has actually come to pass yet. Seems a bit anticlimactic, don't you think? What's going to happen when this actually happens? We're all going to know what's going to happen so it's a spoiler alert?
Meaning until someone can document who other than Jesus was worthy to know about the scroll the only candidate who the angel could have been is Jesus.
Except for the fact that we all know now the contents of the scroll before the fact. So it kinda throws your thoery right out the window.
 
Last edited:

Nathan P

Active member
You mean you do not want my posts to appear on your screen because you know there is no documentation that you can find of who other than Jesus was worthy to know what was in the scroll after it was taken from the Father?
 

shnarkle

Well-known member
You mean you do not want my posts to appear on your screen
That appears on all of my posts to everyone.

What I'm pointing out is that John is worthy to get this revelation, and everyone who reads John's account is worthy as well so, again, your theory seems a bit odd given that everyone who reads his account is worthy. The point that John is making is that only Christ is worthy to open the scroll. You're engaging in the fallacy of the Non Sequitur. You think that just because Jesus is worthy, it must then follow that Jesus is an angel which clearly doesn't follow at all, except insofar as he conveys this message to someone else.

I haven't read through all the posts on this thread so I'm just speculating here, but my guess is that you're attempting to come up with some sort of justification for the idea that Jesus is a created being/angel.

My position is that "the word" that comes from the father is the son, and this is an eternal relationship. God is does not change, therefore he is eternally the father. He always was the father and always will be. Therefore the son is not a being that comes into being, but always exists eternally. He is eternally begotten of the father.

This is not to say that the son was always Jesus. Jesus wasn't even given his name until he was eight days old. John clearly points out that the word "became flesh", and was given the name "jesus". It doesn't then follow that Jesus always existed. He clearly was born into this world, and died as well.

When a caterpillar becomes a butterfly, it is no longer a caterpillar. When zygote becomes a fetus, and then proceeds to become a child, adolescent, adult, etc., it is no longer a zygote. People tend to confuse the fact that when the word became flesh, it necessarily means that the word was not flesh prior to becoming flesh.

Jesus does not have an eternal existence, but the son does. Jesus begins his ministry by pointing out that one must deny themselves, and it is safe to assume he followed his own advice. Therefore the self denied, reveals the eternal son of God. The self denied loses its life for the sake of Christ. The biological life is discarded in favor of eternal life which is Christ.
 

jamesh

Well-known member
It has been proven many times Jesus was only an angel. Since John was told about the scroll in revelations and since only Jesus was worthy to know what was in the scroll after he took it from the Father rev. 5: 1-10 or 11 and it is an angel telling John about the scroll , then that means the angel telling John about the scroll has to be Jesus because only Jesus is worthy to tell anyone that information.
Was Jesus who you say is only an angel named Michael? Was it Jesus as Michael the same angel that called out from heaven to Abraham at Genesis 22:15?

IN HIM,
james
 
Top