Ironically, I was led out of Trinitarianism by a dear JW friend who dared to show me what was Biblical and what was organized church doctrine. But, since I care more for truth and truth is generally closer to the beginning of the story i studied the Bible and church fathers and where the idea of the trinity came from and now i can say I'm under the BU umbrella. I like that you reminded us that neither God nor Jesus deals with organizations, but with the individual. It puts the culpability back on ourselves instead of sloughing off responsibility to the "church". One of my key verses is "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." I'm also relieved that I'm not the only one realizing the lies we're told by authority figures and organizations in many areas of life can lead one to become overly cynical and doubt everything...from God's existence to nefarious gvt involvement in our lives. I find myself at times ONLY trusting God and Jesus. Truth can be a hard taskmaster while it's setting you free.
Really enjoyed the interview. Sam, you know enough about the topic and ask good questions. Ryan, goodness, your knowledge (and memory of the history) is amazing. I learned much about Jehovah's witnesses here. You've got an impactful testimony coming through and out of the "Witnesses" to the knowledge of the one God and the one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus. Sam, one little point: there is no "Easter" in the New Testament. You must be thinking of the KJV of Acts 12:4. πάσχα - It's the normal Greek word for Passover. What "possessed" the KJV team to translate that as "Easter"? :) Thanks again. PS, Nice studio.
To add some additional info on the background. Yes, non-trinitarianism was rising in popularity in general from the mid-late 1700s-1900s. There are the First and Second Great Awakening Movements which were into these Christologies, which involves Arians and Unitarians together, and these groups were keen on the philosophy of Restorationism, and so were in agreement on soul sleep, hellfire not being literal, Earthly Paradise Kingdom, etc. For instance, you have the Barton-Stone Movement in the 1800s, which branched out into several other churches, and this really gave birth to the Millerites which led to the Adventists and JWs. The early Bible students were one of these groups in agreement on these branches coming out the 1800s Arian/Unitarian movement, and as mentioned Russell became a leading Pastor amongst them, causing further splintering when they didn't agree with his takes. When it comes to Michael the Archangel being Jesus. I am currently aware of several Ex-SDA groups which are non-trinitarian, also holding to this stance (though not all of them might see eye to eye on it), so Russell I imagine may have picked up from the Adventists before him, being a former Adventist himself, or at least someone who studied with them for a while. I as a Unitarian leaning more into pre-human existence, am in touch with several similar minded groups, including: -The Free Bible Students (now known as "Christian Disciples Ministry International") -The "One God One Body" churches (largely comprising of Ex-SDAs) -And some other independent non-denoms. There are also what are called the "Russelite" Bible Student Groups, known as the "International Bible Students" and "Millennial Dawnists", who disagreed with Rutherford and the JWs in the 1920s, but still regard Russell as prophet or alike, and hold his teachings and books almost as Gospel.
@@transfigured3673 I should also add, if you, or anyone else are interested in really more 'in depth' and hard to trace history, both the good and the bad (and sometimes the weird), I'd recommend the YT channel "Watchtower History". It's run by two professional historians (Jeff and Paul), who were never JW, but only studied with them for a time, and via a passionate curiosity, have sought an unbiased but factual approach to the roots, history and evolution of their church and organisation. They've done some fantastic work, even attaining rare handwritten letters and discontinued books from around the world in various archives. So can't recommend them enough.
Eastern Orthodox do restaurants, JW's wash windows, and the Mafia does construction. Glad you shattered both the religious and career molds, Ryan. You’re really out here defying expectations, huh? :) I appreciate you sharing your story. In a world dominated by social media and self-glorifying narratives, testimonies that glorify God are refreshing, cutting through the noise and filling the liminal space with hope.
@@transfigured3673Well, obviously Ivy League Unitarianism is a much later development ;). Thanks to the wonders of progressivism and secular institutionalism it became like the highbrow, academic cousin of Trinitarianism, who went off to study philosophy, got too deep into existentialism, and came back with a whole new identity :)
I’m a Bible Student and we still study the original Watch Towers and Studies in the Scriptures. There are a LOT of difference between what Russell taught and what JWs teach. We have convention still, and we meet in small ecclesia.
A lot of the JW theology sounds like a bad fan fiction. Deontologized theology done with a reliance on proof texts and disconnected from philosophy seems like a terrible idea, hence the connection between JW and Catholicism.
Paul quoted and used many philosophical concepts but more careful then Philo or Gnostics. For Philo and later Gnostics, Judaism and later Christianity, was some thing that needed to rationalized into a Platonist Cosmology. Plato's Timaeus, essentially regards the Creator as a Worker in between eternal and temporal. Thus temporal Creation must overcome or ascend past the creator to become eternal. Genesis is in direct conflict with the Timaeus, Mankind is barred from eternal life because of thier efforts to ascend past Yahweh thier Creator. Thus the real between Gnosticism and Non, becomes do you put Genesis or Timaeus first? Paul didn't reject Philosophy, but Genesis was First, Other Cases like in Hebrews 8, Paul uses the Plato's Concept of the Shadow and Reality when comparing the Old and New Covenants. Despite apparently rejecting philosophy, Watchtower Christology mirrors the Timaeus in making Christ an intermediary Creator, much like Tertullian and Arianus. Also Watchtower has a unique type of Modelism, Regarding Micheal, Jesus, and, Abaddon as different titles for the same person.
I came back to this discussion because something you, Sam, said sparked a thought in me. You mentioned how certain aspects of Jehovah’s Witnesses reflect early Christianity, and one of those, though not explicitly mentioned by you guys, is their house church structure. It's known that this model played a big role in their growth early on, and it’s not unique to them. Other groups, like the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) and the Chinese house church movements, have also adopted this model. The personal, close-knit vibe of small house churches often appeals to people who feel burned out by larger, more hierarchical church institutions. This ties into a bigger connection I’ve noticed between religious movements, like Charles Taze Russell’s project, and these emerging sense-making communities, like Vander Klay’s project. Both seem to draw people in during times of political or institutional disillusionment. They provide an alternative to large, impersonal systems, creating spaces that feel more democratic and participatory. For many, these decentralized communities feel like a way to reclaim some agency in their lives. It’s as though the appeal of these sense making spaces, in particular, is rooted in a sense of returning to a more grassroots form of democracy, like what was seen in Ancient Athens. The novelty of these movements also generates enthusiasm, which plays a big role in what makes them so captivating. However, there’s a catch. The sense of freedom they offer often doesn’t come from actually addressing or fixing what’s broken in the institutions people are leaving. Instead, it’s more about the feeling of rebellion, pushing back against those old systems. That can feel liberating for a while (this sentiment often shows up in the testimonies of deconstructed atheists), but without addressing the deeper issues or establishing a solid, and I'd say emanent, vision, these movements can end up falling into the same traps they were seeking to escape from. For instance, Protestantism still has yet to confront the Trinity if it hopes to truly progress. The real challenge, then, is figuring out how to turn that initial spark of rebellion into something more constructive, or if that’s even possible. How then do you create communities that genuinely address the problems people are fleeing from, rather than just serving as a temporary escape, especially if there isn’t a solid foundation to build on? That’s a recurring theme I’ve seen in religious movements, and it feels like something we’re also seeing, or I predict we soon will see, in the idea space.
@@EmJay2022just as a point of clarity. JWs almost never have house "churches" unless its in a land where they are outlawed. The Kingdom Halls are all owned by and constructed on headquarters authority. Congregations are almost always kept under 120-150 "publishers" and those would be considered large.
@@transfigured3673 Now you’ve got me thinking about Star Wars, lol. So even though Luke laid down his lightsaber and refused to become what he was fighting against, later going into isolation, he ultimately returned to the rebellion and sacrificed himself for the cause. But is it possible he still remained, in some sense, the "bad guy"? Could his initial reluctance to help the Resistance have been a reflection of self-centeredness born from guilt rather than true virtue? I guess the bigger question for any "hero" figure is whether they’ve truly discerned their actions. It’s possible to replicate superficial, sacrificial, heroic behaviors, and convince yourself and others of your virtue, while, deep down, even subconsciously, being deceived about your true motives. JBP came to mind as I wrote this.
@@ryanrussell6425 Right. To clarify, I was specifically talking about JW's formative years. But that goes to my point. These movements often end up becoming the very controlling institutions they were trying to escape. House churches, for example, initially provide a sense of safety and security, but over time, as hierarchies develop, they are seen as difficult to monitor and control. As such, many movements phase them out. Those that do retain house churches typically implement systems to keep them under strict hierarchical supervision.
I forgot to ask. Does Ryan have any familial connection to Charles Taze Russell whom he described as having a strategic influence on early JW movement?
No relation, I've been asked that so many times even on the inside of the JWs lol. Being the weird guy that C.T Russell was, he lived in a voluntary celibate marriage until his wife divorced him, and he died childless. He somehow missed the first command God ever gave humans. . .
Regarding birthdays: How did early Christians and Jews of Bible times view birthday celebrations? “The notion of a birthday festival was far from the ideas of the Christians of this period in general.”-The History of the Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries (New York, 1848), Augustus Neander (translated by Henry John Rose), p. 190. “The later Hebrews looked on the celebration of birthdays as a part of idolatrous worship, a view which would be abundantly confirmed by what they saw of the common observances associated with these days.”-The Imperial Bible-Dictionary (London, 1874), edited by Patrick Fairbairn, Vol. I, p. 225.
Lol are those biblical references? I fail to see where scripture indicates celebrating the anniversary of your childs birth and survival against the odds, is reason to be shunned and cut off from the body of Christ? Although I guess if you're not in the Body of Christ in the first place because you opt out of the New Covenant that becomes irrelevant. . .
The Godhead and Godhood Christians do love their spiritual jargon, especially when it is has the epic overtones of the King James Version. Jargon is only useful when we properly know what it means. One such theological word found in and popularised by the KJV is “godhead.” The problem I have with it is that it is used synonymously for the Holy Trinity. As far scripture is concerned it isn’t. The word “godhead” appears only three times in the KJV at Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9. [1]The word is from Middle English and means the same as godhood, that is, the state of being god. The -head suffix is the same as -hood which we still use in modern English in words like fatherhood, the state of being a father. [2]Three different Koine Greek words, theion, theiotēs, and theotēs, in order of their appearance in the KJV, were translated as “godhead”. Modern translations of the Bible do not use godhead but tend to use words like deity, the divine nature, or divine being depending on the context. The Greeks used such words to talk about god without referring to any specific one in particular. This particularly makes sense in Acts 17 at the Areopagus where Paul was addressing a Greek audience and presenting his arguments on the true nature of God. Even in somewhat formal English today we refer to God in sort of an impersonal manner by calling him the Deity. So where did this association with the Trinity come from? On account of the continued popularity of the KJV, the word “godhead” continues to stay in currency. The word was actually introduced into English translations by John Wycliffe, the great English Bible translator and Reformer. [3]As early as the 12th century B.B. Warfield remarks that it was used as a technical term used to refer to the ousia or the substance of God in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Since this predated Wycliffe it was probably an influence on why in his translation of the New Testament the term. It was chosen because of its Trinitarian connotations. The KJV was heavily influenced by Wycliffe’s why is why the godhead was probably used in the translation. Its popularity continued in later documents like Thirty-Nine articles of the Church of England and the Westminster confession. Even though godhead is used to refer to Trinitarian doctrine, in the KJV it is used to translate words that have nothing to do with later theological developments. Even the basic meaning of the word is not Trinitarian and just means being divine. I fully recognise the meaning of a word is determined by how it is used and the word has for a long time assumed that technical theological meaning. All I am saying is whenever we pick up the KJV and read the word, we should not immediately assume it is a reference to the Trinity.
I hope I one day get the honour to pilgrimage to your basement studio Sam. Could we see a greater focus on scriptural translations in 2025? Like Saint Murad’s translation of the Quran or dr Rocco Erico’s works on the aramaic Bible.
Two great books written by an actual historian that you may want to consider are: A Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion’s Watch Tower: 1870-1887 And Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887. Volume 2. Culture and Organization Both are excellent books on the top.
My problem with the socinian position us that it does a really poor job explaining away text like this one John ch.3:13NIV"No one has ascended into heaven, except He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. No one has ascended into heaven, except He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. " Note whatever Jesus is speaking of here made him unique among humans. I just find socinian attempts to explain away the obvious implication of this verse here as ad hoc as any trinitarian rationalisation of their mystery religion.
Think of it in terms of "names". When Jesus says, "No one has ascended into heaven except He who descended from heaven," it may not necessarily refer to literal preexistence but to his unique role and identity as the one chosen and sent by God. Just as the names in the "book of life" are said to be written in heaven before one's salvation, Jesus' mission and identity as the Son of Man could similarly be "stored" in heaven as part of God's eternal plan. In this sense, his "descent" signifies his commissioning by God, rather than literal descent from a preexistent state
@@aservantofJEHOVAH7849 you wouldn’t have the problem you have if you would accept where and who the Bible came from or answer the question i have posed to you many times before. Here it is once again… History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books, and ONLY the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 4th century, just 65 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian doctrine and subsequent councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself? Peace!!!
Jesus was not a literal descendant of Adam (Son of Man) in heaven before he came to earth. It is Trinitarians and Arians who have to "explain the verse away".
@@billschlegel1 he isn't talking after he descended from heaven he became lower than angels nothing to explain . The word descended is in the past tense.
I hope people are not taking this guy seriously. There are Jehovah's Witnesses who are scholars. Some who run blogs that reference sources out outside of Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses can read information not published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
That last statement doesn't meet Þ half-truth sniff test. It's surely not true that JWs can read any literačure. Þ real question is... how limited is Þ JW restricted list?
Usually some "called" Unitarians fare worse than most trinitarian apologists: same ridiculous and diminishing tactics. We JWS are fully equipped with a lot of information, on theology and history. I lost any respect I had for this channel. The pre-existence angelic Christology of the JWs, and the pre-existence of the logos is the original faith. Those who didn't believe in the pre-existence of the logos (real personal being), were rare or too little to have any historical value. Socianism tends to be out of the historical scope. JW´s Christology is the true one of the first three centuries.
@@NashRespect it's is true. Jehovah’s Witnesses are cautioned about certain material we read or watch according to Bible principles but there is no ban on reading materials outside of the what is published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
@@alemartinezrojas5285 The JWs used to be deep. They aren’t anymore. Their WT read on a 3rd grade level. They don’t study typology or any intellectual materials anymore. Read a WT from 1912 and read one today. Completely different. Today all they know how to do is guide you to their website. Because they don’t actually study in depth theology.
🇷🇺☦️As if it is not the same thing...Thank you Eloha the Father YHVH, His Logos the Christ & His Holy Life-Giving Spirit that our Holy Sepulcher where we yesterday worshipped our holy Trinity that it is not accupied by you Arians & Muslims, but by us Russians, Latins & Greeks = the authentic Romans under Augustus Constantinus Maximus without whom you would not know what is the Bible even. Repent, God bless & Mary Christmas🙏🌲❤
Both denominational traditions deny the divinity of Jesus the Messiah. That puts them outside of the historical Christian faith that originated with Jesus' disciples.
What is defined as "Orthodoxy" today came a whopping three and a half centuries after Christ. It's certainly not the faith of the apostles but an amalgamation of paganism and monotheism.
@@stephenbailey9969 I'm not a JW, but a BU. Biblical Unitarianism aligns with the strict monotheism of Jesus and his apostles, as seen in the Shema (Deut. 6:4) and Jesus’ affirmation that the Father alone is the "only true God" (John 17:3). Early Christians, like the Ebionites and dynamic monarchians, also rejected the divinity of Jesus, reflecting diverse beliefs before the Trinity emerged centuries later through politically influenced councils like Nicaea and Constantinople. Rather than being revisionist, Biblical Unitarianism faithfully adheres to the clear teachings of Scripture, while the Trinity represents a later philosophical development that deviated from the apostolic faith.
This guy isn't as knowledgeable as he thinks he is. There's quite a few Jehovah's Witnesses on the public forum Quora that answer a lot of questions about many topics, including their history.
There’s a massive difference between Jehovah’s Witnesses, being knowledgeable, and what the original watchtower taught. If you go back to the watchtower in the 1870-1916 you see a massive difference For example, 1913: How does the church’s share in the sin offering as shown in the Atonement Day sacrifices benefit the world in the millennium? 2025: How can we be Jehovah’s Friend?
@Sirach144 First of CT Russell is not the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses. You do understand that? Secondly, Bro CT Russell made an excellent point back in the 1800s that still applies today. "We do not object to changing our views on any matter or to discarding any prior application of prophecy or any other text when we see good reason for the change. In fact, it is important that we are willing to unlearn errors and mere traditions in order to learn the truth. (...) We have a duty to "test all things" with the infallible Word of God, and "hold fast to what is good." (Translated from Zion's Watch Tower, Oct. 1879, p. 38.) The more we study and pray for Jehovah's spirit to help better understand different matters some things will be put away.
No, they are not… History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books, and ONLY the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time. Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 4th century, just 65 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian doctrine and subsequent councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself? Peace!!!
@ prove to me how they’re not right about John 1:1c. I’m aware of what you’ve said above. I’m glad you agree that the Trinity doctrine was a creation as well. Churches created their doctrine from their interpretation of theBible. The words haven’t changed from it.
@@ljnouata9088 The Trinity was not a doctrine created from the Bible. The doctrine came before the Bible was ever solidified The church that solidified the Bible did so with the Trinity in mind. My point is, if anyone believes in the Bible they should do so as a Trinitarian OR not just believe in the Bible. THEY DID change the BIBLE. You cannot turn a Trinitarian book against itself. As far as “proving” anything i cannot. I cannot even prove my name is “Rich”. That is a “belief”. Either you believe it or you dont. If you want some Biblical back up for it then that is a whole other position.
@@srich7503 ok so then prove to me without bias how grammatically an anarthrous predicate nominative noun can’t be translated indefinitely. using Greek grammar nothing else.
@@srich7503 “the church that solidified the Bible did so with the Trinity in mind” so they read the Bible and came to that conclusion? guess what. No Bible verse states that “God is 3 persons”. There’s no verse in the bible that states that “God has 3 roles within himself” there’s no verse that says “God has 3 beings, but are one in nature” none. So wouldn’t you conclude that the Church added their philosophy into the bible to make it say what it doesn’t. Your Trinity is a creation not stemmed from the Bible. But from man’s own interpretations.
In some ancient Jewish traditions before and during the time of Christ it was believed that the Word or Logos was the Archangel and Firstborn. PHILO JUDAEUS (circa. 20 B.C.E to 50 C.E.): "...according to HIS FIRST-BORN WORD, THE ELDEST OF HIS ANGELS, AS THE GREAT ARCH-ANGEL OF MANY NAMES; for he is called, the Authority, and the name of god, and the Word, and Man according to God's image, and He who sees Israel..." - (Chapter 27:146(b), “De Confusione Linguarum,” Page 247, “The Works of Philo Judaeus, The contemporary of Josephus, translated from the Greek,” By Charles Duke Yonge, London, H. G. Bohn, 1854-1890.) PHILO JUDAEUS (circa. 20 B.C.E to 50 C.E.): "...in relation to ( GOD'S ) FIRST-BORN AND ELDEST MESSENGER, THE WORD: THAT IS THE MULTI-NAMED ARCHANGEL (WHO WAS) AT THE BEGINNING. For he is also called "the Beginning" and THE "NAME OF GOD" and the "Word" and the "Man after his Image" and "Israel the Seer..." - (Chapter 27:146(b), Philo, Confusion 145-146 Perspective on the World of Jesus with new translations from primary texts by Mahlon H. Smith 1999-2008.) Quotes: MARTIN WERNER: “...The belief that Michael the Archangel was the same as the Word, or the celestial Son of God is not a modern notion. It dates from earliest times in the universal church. The contemporary of Paul, rabbi Philo of Judea, ‘identified the Logos with the archangel Michael...” - (Formation of Christian Dogma, Professor Martin Werner, page 133) MARTIN WERNER: “...The counterpart o this is afforded by an identification of Christ with the archangel Michael, an identification which is made in the Shepherd of Hermas. ... According to the early Christian writing Of The Threefold Fruits, Christ, as one of the seven archangels of God, was created ‘from fire’ and exalted to the status of ‘Son..." - (Formation of Christian Dogma, Professor Martin Werner, page 135) MARTIN WERNER: “...In the 19th century the Berlin Old Testament student, who was also editor of a church newspaper and an ecclesiastical politician, Ernest Wilhelm Hengstenberg, in his many-volumed work on the Christology of the Old Testament, concentrated upon the Early Christian identification of Christ with the angelic figures of the Old Testament, particularly the archangel Michael..." - (Formation of Christian Dogma, Professor Martin Werner, page 137) ... Taken from the last chapter, which was written by Mrs. Collins (a Catholic writer). The first quote has to do with Justin Martyr: YARBO & COLLINS: "...Justin may have had John 1:1c Prov. 8.22-31 ... The Gospel and Revelation both present Jesus as preexistent and as divine in some sense. In the Gospel, he is either an emanation of God or God’s first creature, namely, the only-begotten god. In Revelation, THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT HE IS GOD’S FIRST CREATURE, NAMELY, THE PRINCIPAL ANGEL..." - (p. 203 “King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature”, by Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins) YARBO & COLLINS: "...it should be noted that personified wisdom participates as a creature in God’s activity of creation according to Prov 8:22 LXX...” - (p. 213 “King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature”, by Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins) ... Also there are over 150 Bible translations that translate John 1:1 as "the Word was a god" or something similar, some older than 1611 KJV.
When it comes to early Christian texts associating Jesus with the Archangel, as someone who has read those texts, such as Shepherd of Hemas, Justin Martyr, etc, none of them say Jesus is Michael. They do use Angelic language and sometimes Archangel language to describe him however, since the ancient word "Archangel" simply means "chief messenger". However, in the earliest Christian and Second Temple period texts and traditions, there were several Archangels, Michael, Raphael, and so on. So calling Jesus an archangel in some of these early texts, doesn't associate him with Michael directly, though it can be argued that they might have saw him as some 'kind' of archangel, but the language also may have just been in the context of how the words were used at the time, as "messengers" of God. As even some humans were called "angelos" (where we get the term angel). 100% right though that there are Second Temple traditions which asserted the Word of God was a Heavenly Messenger of some kind.
@@thambone30 Well that's what I'm saying yes. The Bible mentions only one of them, and calls him "one of the many princes" in Daniel, not "the only prince". But Jewish tradition outside of that (which you have been quoting, such as Philo) believed in several archangels and saw them as an "order" or "ranking" of a kind, much like the Seraphim, Cherubim, etc. Many ancient Jewish texts, which Philo himself believed in, said Gabriel was seen as an archangel too. Now, you can choose to disagree with that extrabiblical Jewish tradition if you want to on that matter. But I'm just informing you of the context of the history there. I'm not telling you you're right or wrong, I respect the interpretation. But those ancient texts written by those ancient authors, themselves, believed in multiple archangels as per their culture of the time. So it's important to read those ancient texts in light of that. :)
Ironically, I was led out of Trinitarianism by a dear JW friend who dared to show me what was Biblical and what was organized church doctrine. But, since I care more for truth and truth is generally closer to the beginning of the story i studied the Bible and church fathers and where the idea of the trinity came from and now i can say I'm under the BU umbrella. I like that you reminded us that neither God nor Jesus deals with organizations, but with the individual. It puts the culpability back on ourselves instead of sloughing off responsibility to the "church". One of my key verses is "work out your own salvation with fear and trembling." I'm also relieved that I'm not the only one realizing the lies we're told by authority figures and organizations in many areas of life can lead one to become overly cynical and doubt everything...from God's existence to nefarious gvt involvement in our lives. I find myself at times ONLY trusting God and Jesus. Truth can be a hard taskmaster while it's setting you free.
@@letusgather...7820 truth really can be a hard taskmaster, but still a good one
Really enjoyed the interview. Sam, you know enough about the topic and ask good questions. Ryan, goodness, your knowledge (and memory of the history) is amazing. I learned much about Jehovah's witnesses here. You've got an impactful testimony coming through and out of the "Witnesses" to the knowledge of the one God and the one mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.
Sam, one little point: there is no "Easter" in the New Testament. You must be thinking of the KJV of Acts 12:4. πάσχα - It's the normal Greek word for Passover. What "possessed" the KJV team to translate that as "Easter"? :)
Thanks again. PS, Nice studio.
To add some additional info on the background. Yes, non-trinitarianism was rising in popularity in general from the mid-late 1700s-1900s. There are the First and Second Great Awakening Movements which were into these Christologies, which involves Arians and Unitarians together, and these groups were keen on the philosophy of Restorationism, and so were in agreement on soul sleep, hellfire not being literal, Earthly Paradise Kingdom, etc.
For instance, you have the Barton-Stone Movement in the 1800s, which branched out into several other churches, and this really gave birth to the Millerites which led to the Adventists and JWs. The early Bible students were one of these groups in agreement on these branches coming out the 1800s Arian/Unitarian movement, and as mentioned Russell became a leading Pastor amongst them, causing further splintering when they didn't agree with his takes.
When it comes to Michael the Archangel being Jesus. I am currently aware of several Ex-SDA groups which are non-trinitarian, also holding to this stance (though not all of them might see eye to eye on it), so Russell I imagine may have picked up from the Adventists before him, being a former Adventist himself, or at least someone who studied with them for a while.
I as a Unitarian leaning more into pre-human existence, am in touch with several similar minded groups, including:
-The Free Bible Students (now known as "Christian Disciples Ministry International")
-The "One God One Body" churches (largely comprising of Ex-SDAs)
-And some other independent non-denoms.
There are also what are called the "Russelite" Bible Student Groups, known as the "International Bible Students" and "Millennial Dawnists", who disagreed with Rutherford and the JWs in the 1920s, but still regard Russell as prophet or alike, and hold his teachings and books almost as Gospel.
Fascinating. Thanks for sharing!
@@transfigured3673 I should also add, if you, or anyone else are interested in really more 'in depth' and hard to trace history, both the good and the bad (and sometimes the weird), I'd recommend the YT channel "Watchtower History".
It's run by two professional historians (Jeff and Paul), who were never JW, but only studied with them for a time, and via a passionate curiosity, have sought an unbiased but factual approach to the roots, history and evolution of their church and organisation.
They've done some fantastic work, even attaining rare handwritten letters and discontinued books from around the world in various archives. So can't recommend them enough.
Watchtower History is one of my favorite channels! Ive interacted with Jeff on an occasion or two to ask a question.
Yes Bible students still exist. I am one. We still study the works of Russell in our ecclesia. We still have conventions.
Eastern Orthodox do restaurants, JW's wash windows, and the Mafia does construction. Glad you shattered both the religious and career molds, Ryan. You’re really out here defying expectations, huh? :) I appreciate you sharing your story. In a world dominated by social media and self-glorifying narratives, testimonies that glorify God are refreshing, cutting through the noise and filling the liminal space with hope.
Amen! Now if only I could break free of the stereotype that Unitarians just attend Ivy League universities and run elite institutions.
@@transfigured3673Well, obviously Ivy League Unitarianism is a much later development ;). Thanks to the wonders of progressivism and secular institutionalism it became like the highbrow, academic cousin of Trinitarianism, who went off to study philosophy, got too deep into existentialism, and came back with a whole new identity :)
lol, that's a good analogy
Interesting stuff! Thank you both.
Thanks for listening!
I’m a Bible Student and we still study the original Watch Towers and Studies in the Scriptures. There are a LOT of difference between what Russell taught and what JWs teach. We have convention still, and we meet in small ecclesia.
Jesus us God ..hell is eterna. ..the Holy Spirit isn't a force
A lot of the JW theology sounds like a bad fan fiction. Deontologized theology done with a reliance on proof texts and disconnected from philosophy seems like a terrible idea, hence the connection between JW and Catholicism.
Paul quoted and used many philosophical concepts but more careful then Philo or Gnostics. For Philo and later Gnostics, Judaism and later Christianity, was some thing that needed to rationalized into a Platonist Cosmology.
Plato's Timaeus, essentially regards the Creator as a Worker in between eternal and temporal. Thus temporal Creation must overcome or ascend past the creator to become eternal.
Genesis is in direct conflict with the Timaeus, Mankind is barred from eternal life because of thier efforts to ascend past Yahweh thier Creator.
Thus the real between Gnosticism and Non, becomes do you put Genesis or Timaeus first? Paul didn't reject Philosophy, but Genesis was First, Other Cases like in Hebrews 8, Paul uses the Plato's Concept of the Shadow and Reality when comparing the Old and New Covenants.
Despite apparently rejecting philosophy, Watchtower Christology mirrors the Timaeus in making Christ an intermediary Creator, much like Tertullian and Arianus. Also Watchtower has a unique type of Modelism, Regarding Micheal, Jesus, and, Abaddon as different titles for the same person.
I came back to this discussion because something you, Sam, said sparked a thought in me. You mentioned how certain aspects of Jehovah’s Witnesses reflect early Christianity, and one of those, though not explicitly mentioned by you guys, is their house church structure. It's known that this model played a big role in their growth early on, and it’s not unique to them. Other groups, like the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) and the Chinese house church movements, have also adopted this model. The personal, close-knit vibe of small house churches often appeals to people who feel burned out by larger, more hierarchical church institutions.
This ties into a bigger connection I’ve noticed between religious movements, like Charles Taze Russell’s project, and these emerging sense-making communities, like Vander Klay’s project. Both seem to draw people in during times of political or institutional disillusionment. They provide an alternative to large, impersonal systems, creating spaces that feel more democratic and participatory. For many, these decentralized communities feel like a way to reclaim some agency in their lives. It’s as though the appeal of these sense making spaces, in particular, is rooted in a sense of returning to a more grassroots form of democracy, like what was seen in Ancient Athens. The novelty of these movements also generates enthusiasm, which plays a big role in what makes them so captivating.
However, there’s a catch. The sense of freedom they offer often doesn’t come from actually addressing or fixing what’s broken in the institutions people are leaving. Instead, it’s more about the feeling of rebellion, pushing back against those old systems. That can feel liberating for a while (this sentiment often shows up in the testimonies of deconstructed atheists), but without addressing the deeper issues or establishing a solid, and I'd say emanent, vision, these movements can end up falling into the same traps they were seeking to escape from. For instance, Protestantism still has yet to confront the Trinity if it hopes to truly progress.
The real challenge, then, is figuring out how to turn that initial spark of rebellion into something more constructive, or if that’s even possible. How then do you create communities that genuinely address the problems people are fleeing from, rather than just serving as a temporary escape, especially if there isn’t a solid foundation to build on? That’s a recurring theme I’ve seen in religious movements, and it feels like something we’re also seeing, or I predict we soon will see, in the idea space.
Insightful comment EmJay. It’s like how the rebels in Star Wars don’t know what to do when they win
@@transfigured3673 Right! 👍
@@EmJay2022just as a point of clarity. JWs almost never have house "churches" unless its in a land where they are outlawed.
The Kingdom Halls are all owned by and constructed on headquarters authority.
Congregations are almost always kept under 120-150 "publishers" and those would be considered large.
@@transfigured3673 Now you’ve got me thinking about Star Wars, lol. So even though Luke laid down his lightsaber and refused to become what he was fighting against, later going into isolation, he ultimately returned to the rebellion and sacrificed himself for the cause. But is it possible he still remained, in some sense, the "bad guy"? Could his initial reluctance to help the Resistance have been a reflection of self-centeredness born from guilt rather than true virtue?
I guess the bigger question for any "hero" figure is whether they’ve truly discerned their actions. It’s possible to replicate superficial, sacrificial, heroic behaviors, and convince yourself and others of your virtue, while, deep down, even subconsciously, being deceived about your true motives. JBP came to mind as I wrote this.
@@ryanrussell6425 Right. To clarify, I was specifically talking about JW's formative years. But that goes to my point. These movements often end up becoming the very controlling institutions they were trying to escape. House churches, for example, initially provide a sense of safety and security, but over time, as hierarchies develop, they are seen as difficult to monitor and control. As such, many movements phase them out. Those that do retain house churches typically implement systems to keep them under strict hierarchical supervision.
I forgot to ask. Does Ryan have any familial connection to Charles Taze Russell whom he described as having a strategic influence on early JW movement?
No relation, I've been asked that so many times even on the inside of the JWs lol.
Being the weird guy that C.T Russell was, he lived in a voluntary celibate marriage until his wife divorced him, and he died childless.
He somehow missed the first command God ever gave humans. . .
@@ryanrussell6425 Wow.
Regarding birthdays:
How did early Christians and Jews of Bible times view birthday celebrations?
“The notion of a birthday festival was far from the ideas of the Christians of this period in general.”-The History of the Christian Religion and Church, During the Three First Centuries (New York, 1848), Augustus Neander (translated by Henry John Rose), p. 190.
“The later Hebrews looked on the celebration of birthdays as a part of idolatrous worship, a view which would be abundantly confirmed by what they saw of the common observances associated with these days.”-The Imperial Bible-Dictionary (London, 1874), edited by Patrick Fairbairn, Vol. I, p. 225.
Lol are those biblical references?
I fail to see where scripture indicates celebrating the anniversary of your childs birth and survival against the odds, is reason to be shunned and cut off from the body of Christ?
Although I guess if you're not in the Body of Christ in the first place because you opt out of the New Covenant that becomes irrelevant. . .
The Godhead and Godhood
Christians do love their spiritual jargon, especially when it is has the epic overtones of the King James Version. Jargon is only useful when we properly know what it means. One such theological word found in and popularised by the KJV is “godhead.” The problem I have with it is that it is used synonymously for the Holy Trinity. As far scripture is concerned it isn’t.
The word “godhead” appears only three times in the KJV at Acts 17:29, Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9. [1]The word is from Middle English and means the same as godhood, that is, the state of being god. The -head suffix is the same as -hood which we still use in modern English in words like fatherhood, the state of being a father. [2]Three different Koine Greek words, theion, theiotēs, and theotēs, in order of their appearance in the KJV, were translated as “godhead”. Modern translations of the Bible do not use godhead but tend to use words like deity, the divine nature, or divine being depending on the context. The Greeks used such words to talk about god without referring to any specific one in particular. This particularly makes sense in Acts 17 at the Areopagus where Paul was addressing a Greek audience and presenting his arguments on the true nature of God. Even in somewhat formal English today we refer to God in sort of an impersonal manner by calling him the Deity. So where did this association with the Trinity come from?
On account of the continued popularity of the KJV, the word “godhead” continues to stay in currency. The word was actually introduced into English translations by John Wycliffe, the great English Bible translator and Reformer. [3]As early as the 12th century B.B. Warfield remarks that it was used as a technical term used to refer to the ousia or the substance of God in the doctrine of the Holy Trinity. Since this predated Wycliffe it was probably an influence on why in his translation of the New Testament the term. It was chosen because of its Trinitarian connotations. The KJV was heavily influenced by Wycliffe’s why is why the godhead was probably used in the translation. Its popularity continued in later documents like Thirty-Nine articles of the Church of England and the Westminster confession.
Even though godhead is used to refer to Trinitarian doctrine, in the KJV it is used to translate words that have nothing to do with later theological developments. Even the basic meaning of the word is not Trinitarian and just means being divine. I fully recognise the meaning of a word is determined by how it is used and the word has for a long time assumed that technical theological meaning. All I am saying is whenever we pick up the KJV and read the word, we should not immediately assume it is a reference to the Trinity.
Trinity is biblical ..Jesus is God
I hope I one day get the honour to pilgrimage to your basement studio Sam. Could we see a greater focus on scriptural translations in 2025? Like Saint Murad’s translation of the Quran or dr Rocco Erico’s works on the aramaic Bible.
I would love that
like your channel and your interviews but man you kept interrupting and talking over your guest in this one!
Two great books written by an actual historian that you may want to consider are:
A Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion’s Watch Tower: 1870-1887
And
Separate Identity: Organizational Identity Among Readers of Zion's Watch Tower: 1870-1887. Volume 2. Culture and Organization
Both are excellent books on the top.
My problem with the socinian position us that it does a really poor job explaining away text like this one John ch.3:13NIV"No one has ascended into heaven, except He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. No one has ascended into heaven, except He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. " Note whatever Jesus is speaking of here made him unique among humans. I just find socinian attempts to explain away the obvious implication of this verse here as ad hoc as any trinitarian rationalisation of their mystery religion.
Think of it in terms of "names". When Jesus says, "No one has ascended into heaven except He who descended from heaven," it may not necessarily refer to literal preexistence but to his unique role and identity as the one chosen and sent by God. Just as the names in the "book of life" are said to be written in heaven before one's salvation, Jesus' mission and identity as the Son of Man could similarly be "stored" in heaven as part of God's eternal plan. In this sense, his "descent" signifies his commissioning by God, rather than literal descent from a preexistent state
@@EmJay2022 but his being chosen and sent by God would make him unique John was chosen and sent by God. John ch.1:6 see also Malachi ch.4:5
@@aservantofJEHOVAH7849 you wouldn’t have the problem you have if you would accept where and who the Bible came from or answer the question i have posed to you many times before. Here it is once again…
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books, and ONLY the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time.
Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 4th century, just 65 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian doctrine and subsequent councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
Peace!!!
Jesus was not a literal descendant of Adam (Son of Man) in heaven before he came to earth. It is Trinitarians and Arians who have to "explain the verse away".
@@billschlegel1 he isn't talking after he descended from heaven he became lower than angels nothing to explain . The word descended is in the past tense.
I am a ex jw and I love Jesus Christ so very much and Jehovah witness are a freemasonry cult
I hope people are not taking this guy seriously. There are Jehovah's Witnesses who are scholars. Some who run blogs that reference sources out outside of Jehovah's Witnesses. Jehovah's Witnesses can read information not published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society.
That last statement doesn't meet Þ half-truth sniff test. It's surely not true that JWs can read any literačure. Þ real question is... how limited is Þ JW restricted list?
Usually some "called" Unitarians fare worse than most trinitarian apologists: same ridiculous and diminishing tactics. We JWS are fully equipped with a lot of information, on theology and history. I lost any respect I had for this channel. The pre-existence angelic Christology of the JWs, and the pre-existence of the logos is the original faith. Those who didn't believe in the pre-existence of the logos (real personal being), were rare or too little to have any historical value. Socianism tends to be out of the historical scope. JW´s Christology is the true one of the first three centuries.
@@NashRespect it's is true. Jehovah’s Witnesses are cautioned about certain material we read or watch according to Bible principles but there is no ban on reading materials outside of the what is published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.
Read Crisis of Conscience then. . .
@@alemartinezrojas5285
The JWs used to be deep. They aren’t anymore. Their WT read on a 3rd grade level. They don’t study typology or any intellectual materials anymore. Read a WT from 1912 and read one today. Completely different. Today all they know how to do is guide you to their website. Because they don’t actually study in depth theology.
🇷🇺☦️As if it is not the same thing...Thank you Eloha the Father YHVH, His Logos the Christ & His Holy Life-Giving Spirit that our Holy Sepulcher where we yesterday worshipped our holy Trinity that it is not accupied by you Arians & Muslims, but by us Russians, Latins & Greeks = the authentic Romans under Augustus Constantinus Maximus without whom you would not know what is the Bible even. Repent, God bless & Mary Christmas🙏🌲❤
Both denominational traditions deny the divinity of Jesus the Messiah. That puts them outside of the historical Christian faith that originated with Jesus' disciples.
It depends a lot o hat you mean by divinity. Arguably neither of them deny the divinity of Jesus, they just define it differently.
What is defined as "Orthodoxy" today came a whopping three and a half centuries after Christ. It's certainly not the faith of the apostles but an amalgamation of paganism and monotheism.
@@EmJay2022 This is standard JW revisionism. Not history.
@@transfigured3673 Not at all. They twist the idea of divine (meaning God, eternal).
They posit Jesus as a created being.
@@stephenbailey9969 I'm not a JW, but a BU. Biblical Unitarianism aligns with the strict monotheism of Jesus and his apostles, as seen in the Shema (Deut. 6:4) and Jesus’ affirmation that the Father alone is the "only true God" (John 17:3). Early Christians, like the Ebionites and dynamic monarchians, also rejected the divinity of Jesus, reflecting diverse beliefs before the Trinity emerged centuries later through politically influenced councils like Nicaea and Constantinople. Rather than being revisionist, Biblical Unitarianism faithfully adheres to the clear teachings of Scripture, while the Trinity represents a later philosophical development that deviated from the apostolic faith.
This guy isn't as knowledgeable as he thinks he is. There's quite a few Jehovah's Witnesses on the public forum Quora that answer a lot of questions about many topics, including their history.
There’s a massive difference between Jehovah’s Witnesses, being knowledgeable, and what the original watchtower taught. If you go back to the watchtower in the 1870-1916 you see a massive difference
For example,
1913: How does the church’s share in the sin offering as shown in the Atonement Day sacrifices benefit the world in the millennium?
2025: How can we be Jehovah’s Friend?
@Sirach144 First of CT Russell is not the founder of Jehovah's Witnesses. You do understand that?
Secondly, Bro CT Russell made an excellent point back in the 1800s that still applies today.
"We do not object to changing our views on any matter or to discarding any prior application of prophecy or any other text when we see good reason for the change. In fact, it is important that we are willing to unlearn errors and mere traditions in order to learn the truth. (...) We have a duty to "test all things" with the infallible Word of God, and "hold fast to what is good." (Translated from Zion's Watch Tower, Oct. 1879, p. 38.)
The more we study and pray for Jehovah's spirit to help better understand different matters some things will be put away.
Still a cult
JW’s are right. John 1:1c should say “a god”.
No, they are not…
History shows us that Jesus didn't leave us a bible, - the apostles didn't tell us which books belong in the bible, - the church fathers never agreed on the 27 books, and ONLY the 27 books of the NT through the 4th century, - not only did they not agree but their individual lists of would-be NT canons were GROWING during this time.
Therefore, if it wasn't the Catholic/Orthodox church, guided by the Holy Spirit, that compiled the 27 books of the NT in the 4th century, just 65 years AFTER the council of Nicaea which began the Trinitarian doctrine and subsequent councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon, and preserved these scriptures by laboriously hand copying them over and over throughout the centuries before the invention of the printing press, the “rule of faith” for many, please tell us who did? And if this church no longer exists today, what good is the text which came forth from her if she couldn't sustain herself?
Peace!!!
@ prove to me how they’re not right about John 1:1c. I’m aware of what you’ve said above. I’m glad you agree that the Trinity doctrine was a creation as well. Churches created their doctrine from their interpretation of theBible. The words haven’t changed from it.
@@ljnouata9088 The Trinity was not a doctrine created from the Bible. The doctrine came before the Bible was ever solidified The church that solidified the Bible did so with the Trinity in mind. My point is, if anyone believes in the Bible they should do so as a Trinitarian OR not just believe in the Bible. THEY DID change the BIBLE. You cannot turn a Trinitarian book against itself. As far as “proving” anything i cannot. I cannot even prove my name is “Rich”. That is a “belief”. Either you believe it or you dont. If you want some Biblical back up for it then that is a whole other position.
@@srich7503 ok so then prove to me without bias how grammatically an anarthrous predicate nominative noun can’t be translated indefinitely. using Greek grammar nothing else.
@@srich7503 “the church that solidified the Bible did so with the Trinity in mind”
so they read the Bible and came to that conclusion? guess what. No Bible verse states that “God is 3 persons”. There’s no verse in the bible that states that “God has 3 roles within himself” there’s no verse that says “God has 3 beings, but are one in nature” none. So wouldn’t you conclude that the Church added their philosophy into the bible to make it say what it doesn’t. Your Trinity is a creation not stemmed from the Bible. But from man’s own interpretations.
In some ancient Jewish traditions before and during the time of Christ it was believed that the Word or Logos was the Archangel and Firstborn.
PHILO JUDAEUS (circa. 20 B.C.E to 50 C.E.): "...according to HIS FIRST-BORN WORD, THE ELDEST OF HIS ANGELS, AS THE GREAT ARCH-ANGEL OF MANY NAMES; for he is called, the Authority, and the name of god, and the Word, and Man according to God's image, and He who sees Israel..." - (Chapter 27:146(b), “De Confusione Linguarum,” Page 247, “The Works of Philo Judaeus, The contemporary of Josephus, translated from the Greek,” By Charles Duke Yonge, London, H. G. Bohn, 1854-1890.)
PHILO JUDAEUS (circa. 20 B.C.E to 50 C.E.): "...in relation to ( GOD'S ) FIRST-BORN AND ELDEST MESSENGER, THE WORD: THAT IS THE MULTI-NAMED ARCHANGEL (WHO WAS) AT THE BEGINNING. For he is also called "the Beginning" and THE "NAME OF GOD" and the "Word" and the "Man after his Image" and "Israel the Seer..." - (Chapter 27:146(b), Philo, Confusion 145-146 Perspective on the World of Jesus with new translations from primary texts by Mahlon H. Smith 1999-2008.)
Quotes:
MARTIN WERNER: “...The belief that Michael the Archangel was the same as the Word, or the celestial Son of God is not a modern notion. It dates from earliest times in the universal church. The contemporary of Paul, rabbi Philo of Judea, ‘identified the Logos with the archangel Michael...” - (Formation of Christian Dogma, Professor Martin Werner, page 133)
MARTIN WERNER: “...The counterpart o this is afforded by an identification of Christ with the archangel Michael, an identification which is made in the Shepherd of Hermas. ... According to the early Christian writing Of The Threefold Fruits, Christ, as one of the seven archangels of God, was created ‘from fire’ and exalted to the status of ‘Son..." - (Formation of Christian Dogma, Professor Martin Werner, page 135)
MARTIN WERNER: “...In the 19th century the Berlin Old Testament student, who was also editor of a church newspaper and an ecclesiastical politician, Ernest Wilhelm Hengstenberg, in his many-volumed work on the Christology of the Old Testament, concentrated upon the Early Christian identification of Christ with the angelic figures of the Old Testament, particularly the archangel Michael..." - (Formation of Christian Dogma, Professor Martin Werner, page 137)
...
Taken from the last chapter, which was written by Mrs. Collins (a Catholic writer). The first quote has to do with Justin Martyr:
YARBO & COLLINS: "...Justin may have had John 1:1c Prov. 8.22-31 ... The Gospel and Revelation both present Jesus as preexistent and as divine in some sense. In the Gospel, he is either an emanation of God or God’s first creature, namely, the only-begotten god. In Revelation, THE EVIDENCE SUGGESTS THAT HE IS GOD’S FIRST CREATURE, NAMELY, THE PRINCIPAL ANGEL..." - (p. 203 “King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature”, by Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins)
YARBO & COLLINS: "...it should be noted that personified wisdom participates as a creature in God’s activity of creation according to Prov 8:22 LXX...” - (p. 213 “King and Messiah as Son of God: Divine, Human, and Angelic Figures in Biblical and Related Literature”, by Adela Yarbro Collins and John J. Collins)
...
Also there are over 150 Bible translations that translate John 1:1 as "the Word was a god" or something similar, some older than 1611 KJV.
When it comes to early Christian texts associating Jesus with the Archangel, as someone who has read those texts, such as Shepherd of Hemas, Justin Martyr, etc, none of them say Jesus is Michael. They do use Angelic language and sometimes Archangel language to describe him however, since the ancient word "Archangel" simply means "chief messenger".
However, in the earliest Christian and Second Temple period texts and traditions, there were several Archangels, Michael, Raphael, and so on. So calling Jesus an archangel in some of these early texts, doesn't associate him with Michael directly, though it can be argued that they might have saw him as some 'kind' of archangel, but the language also may have just been in the context of how the words were used at the time, as "messengers" of God. As even some humans were called "angelos" (where we get the term angel).
100% right though that there are Second Temple traditions which asserted the Word of God was a Heavenly Messenger of some kind.
@ProselyteofYah there's no "Kind" of archangel according to the Bible. There's the Archangel Michael, which some scholars recognize as Jesus.
@@thambone30 Well that's what I'm saying yes. The Bible mentions only one of them, and calls him "one of the many princes" in Daniel, not "the only prince".
But Jewish tradition outside of that (which you have been quoting, such as Philo) believed in several archangels and saw them as an "order" or "ranking" of a kind, much like the Seraphim, Cherubim, etc. Many ancient Jewish texts, which Philo himself believed in, said Gabriel was seen as an archangel too.
Now, you can choose to disagree with that extrabiblical Jewish tradition if you want to on that matter. But I'm just informing you of the context of the history there. I'm not telling you you're right or wrong, I respect the interpretation.
But those ancient texts written by those ancient authors, themselves, believed in multiple archangels as per their culture of the time. So it's important to read those ancient texts in light of that. :)