Jehovah`s Witness/A Challenge to Rando....JWS as Modalists...Proof of the Trinity
Hello Brother Derrick. I have had enough of Rando now. I would have presented this challenge directly to him, but as you know my question would be rejected.
As you stated, whenever he is backed against the wall, he challenges the Trinity. So my challenge to him is this: Prove JWs are not Modalists, and I will show they are and also Prove the Trinity. This should be interesting because as you and others know, I am not a trinitarian but fully understand it. He can have as many of his ilk join in...does not matter.
Question is, will he accept the challenge and be able to defend himself, or will he cower.
Brother Derrick, so you will not be attacked, I only ask you stay out of this one and allow the topic to pass through, unless you a driven by the spirit and must join in. Yes, I would love your input, but I dont want this one to be about you. Will you allow this?
Now I will begin the discussion with Modalism:
To simplify the definition of Modalism for the readers, It is a non-trinitarian belief that there is One God that Operates in 3 Different roles; As Father, Son and Holy Spirit. It is a totally different concept than that of the Trinity and the only agreement between the 2 is that there is God the Father, God The Son, God the Holy Spirit. However, the agreement is only partial for Modalism states they are one, whereas Trinity states they are 3 distinct persons in one Godhead.
Jehovahs Witnesses believe that there is God(Jehovah) the Holy Spirit(which is his active force), and Jesus, who is the son. This will be discussed more thoroughly in the Trinity part of the discussion. That is if Rando takes the challenge or readers request the information. Mr, Holland is more than qualified to also address this.
Now as we get into the discussion, it is not concerning Jehovah that we see JWs as a form of Modalists. It is with Jesus himself. Jws believe that Jesus is: Son of God, Abaddon/Apollyon, meaning destruction, the ruler of the abyss and as Michael the Archangel. One Jesus operating in 3 different modes.
Now I caution the reader to pay close attention, for if the above is denied, there is only one other way for it to be: A trinity of Jesus, Jesus the Son, Jesus the Archangel, Jesus the King of the Abyss.
The Basis of the Belief:
Abaddon/Apollyon: The basis of the belief is dependent and centered on one passage of scripture:
Rev. 9:11 And they had a king over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon.
"When Jesus was on earth as a man, he was a Hebrew, and now in his capacity as Jehovah's royal Executioner he is called by the Hebrew name Abad'don, which means Destruction. (Job 26:6; 28:22; 31:12; 12:23; 14:19) In the Greek in which the inspired Christian Scriptures were written his similar title is Apollyon, which means Destroyer," (Watchtower, Dec. 1, 1961, p. 719)
If you read the scriptures from Job, you find they have entirely nothing to do with Abaddon/Apollyon.The words appolyon/abaddon only appear once is scripture at Rev. 9:11. The word king as relates to that passage simply means; ruler, commander. So in context, we would see that the scripture was telling us that the commander of the locusts name was appolyon/abaddon. If you look back at the beginning of the chapter you find:
9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.
Rev. 9:1 Tells us that a "star" an "Angel" fell from heaven and he was "given" the keys to the bottomless pit. So where is it justified, inferred or even implied that this is Jesus or that the king over the locusts is Jesus? It should be noted that the JWs teach that the locusts symbolize the JW organization and the King over them is Jesus. This is for another discussion.
Michael the Archangel: It should be noted that Jws are not the only ones that believe Jesus is Michael the Archangel. Seventh Day Adventists also believe this. It was actually from the Adventists the JWs got this belief. But let us look at the reasoning:
The following is from ' What Does the Bible Really Teach" JW.Org
At times, individuals are known by more than one name. For example, the patriarch Jacob is also known as Israel, and the apostle Peter, as Simon. (Genesis 49:1, 2; Matthew 10:2) Likewise, the Bible indicates that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ, before and after his life on earth. Let us consider Scriptural reasons for drawing that conclusion.
Archangel. Gods Word refers to Michael the archangel. (Jude 9) This term means chief angel. Notice that Michael is called the archangel. This suggests that there is only one such angel. In fact, the term archangel occurs in the Bible only in the singular, never in the plural. Moreover, Jesus is linked with the office of archangel. Regarding the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 states: The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangels voice. Thus the voice of Jesus is described as being that of an archangel. This scripture therefore suggests that Jesus himself is the archangel Michael.
Army Leader. The Bible states that Michael and his angels battled with the dragon . . . and its angels. (Revelation 12:7) Thus, Michael is the Leader of an army of faithful angels. Revelation also describes Jesus as the Leader of an army of faithful angels. (Revelation 19:14-16) And the apostle Paul specifically mentions the Lord Jesus and his powerful angels. (2 Thessalonians 1:7) So the Bible speaks of both Michael and his angels and Jesus and his angels. (Matthew 13:41; 16:27; 24:31; 1 Peter 3:22) Since Gods Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heavenone headed by Michael and one headed by Jesusit is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role.
For the readers, if you look at this it seems to be logical. However the whole approach is that as stated in the writing: "Notice that Michael is called the archangel. This suggests that there is only one such angel." So by JW reasoning, the Bible suggests there is only one Archangel, Michael. Well, not true, the Bible actually suggests and outright states there are more than one:
Daniel 10:12-14King James Version (KJV)
12 Then said he unto me, Fear not, Daniel: for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard, and I am come for thy words.
13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.
14 Now I am come to make thee understand what shall befall thy people in the latter days: for yet the vision is for many days.
Notice VS 13, it states "Michael, ONE OF THE CHIEF PRINCES".
Now I will leave this for now in case Rando does take the challenge. The real issue is for Rando to prove the beliefs scriptural and non Modalistic. There is no reason to get into the role of Jesus as Son of God. There is no dispute there.
Look forward to seeing what happens with this.
Rev. Darryl Murphy
Hello. Brother Murphy. I want to apologize for the delayed reply, but for some reason I did not get a notification of your question, either in my email, or on my phone. It wasn't until I logged into Allexperts this morning, that I saw your question.
I can tell you right off as to Rando accepting your open challenge. He has been challenged several times before on this topic, and has never risen to the occasion. Watching Rando discuss the Trinity, is about like watching me try to discuss how to build a space shuttle. The truth is, the Trinity is merely Rando's diversion, when he has been caught lying about something else.
I am glad you have issued this challenge to him. He will not accept it. Rando is a first rate, Grade A, coward. He is not interested in intelligent dialogue. In fact, he is incapable of it.
As I said, I am glad you have issued this challenge to him. I am saving this link, as I am sure I will be re-posting it many times in the future, to illustrate this fact. Its only a matter of time where he will come on here and claim to have "pummeled" us on the Trinity, so I am sure this link will come in handy, as yet another example of Rando not being able to back up his own statements.
Yes, I will abide by your wishes to stay out of it. You are correct....he will avoid the issue and try to make it about me, otherwise. In fact, I was going to take time this evening and address some of the utter nonsense that Ms. T posted a couple of days back, but I will even delay that for a couple more days, so as to not distract Rando further.
You have issued a very reasonable challenge, and since Rando actually claims to be an "expert" on the Trinity doctrine, this should be a piece of cake for him. But something tells me that he will do as he always does when his bluff is called.
So this will post, and we will see Rando run for the woods. Even the remarks you have made in this writing, are so far beyond what Rando is capable of discussing, that I predict he will simply launch more of his personal attacks. As you said, he would only reject your question if you had sent it directly to him. That is what Rando does.
Take care, Brother Murphy, and we will watch and see what comes of your challenge. God bless!