Jump to content

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

Diakonos -
TrueTomHarley -
96
2946

Top Posters


Recommended Posts

One thing that has always puzzled me is this: what happened to the spirit creature Michael when Jesus was conceived/born as a human? We are told that Jehovah transferred Michael's life pattern into Jesus in much the same way as God will do for those who are resurrected. This would mean that when Jesus was alive on earth there was no Michael in heaven. As we do not believe that humans have a spirit, in the accepted sense of the word, the question remains, what happened to Michael during Jesus earthly presence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Diakonos said:

what happened to Michael during Jesus earthly presence?

We would assume that Michael, the archangel, became a fetus, a baby, then a toddler, then a young boy, then went through puberty, and became a young man, and then a full grown man who gave himself over to the authorities to be killed. This should give us a glimpse into the level of humility and love shown:

  • (Philippians 2:7-11) 7 No, but he emptied himself and took a slave’s form and became human. 8 More than that, when he came as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to the point of death, yes, death on a torture stake. 9 For this very reason, God exalted him to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name, 10 so that in the name of Jesus every knee should bend—of those in heaven and those on earth and those under the ground— 11 and every tongue should openly acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.

Michael means "Who is like God?" and Immanuel means "With us is God." The Bible never makes a specific point about identifying Michael as either Jesus or Immanuel or Christ. But this is not so different from Matthew saying that he will be called Immanuel, and yet we never hear Jesus called Immanual anywhere either. He was mostly called Jesus, Savior, Rabbi, son of man, son of God, and Messiah (Christ), etc.

I know this wasn't necessarily your point in bringing it up, but a lot of people think we are the only religion that ever thought of claiming that Michael was the same as Jesus Christ prior to his earthly presence. The idea had been around for many years before Jehovah's Witnesses came along. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed others also believe that Jesus and Michael are one and the same, however they also believe that Jesus is God the Son, although they didn't always hold to that belief. In the Finished Mystery, Russell, if indeed it was Russell, wrote that Michael was the Pope and his angels were the bishops ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Each name has a meaning behind it; my father’s surname reflects the type of work his ancestors did long ago.  God changed the name of Abram (“Exalted Father”) – to Abraham (“Father of Many”) signifying his new appointed, divine role. 

Michael – “Who is Like God”.  This is declaring a role Jesus reflects in Armageddon, as he battles the “Beast” of Rev 13 which believers in it proclaim, “Who is Like the Beast?”  It is a battle over who takes authority over God’s people/anointed ones. 

1 Thess 4:16 - For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout] with the archangel’s voice, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. (Rev 1:10,12,13)

The Beasts of Rev 13, who work in tandem, comes against “Michael” - 

 “ At that time Michael, the great prince who stands watch over your people, will rise up. There will be a time of distress such as never has occurred since nations came into being until that time. But at that time all your people who are found written in the book will escape.” Dan 12:1

Escape what?  The two Beasts, during the Great Tribulation/Armageddon. 

"Look, it will be like a lion coming from the thickets of the Jordan to the watered grazing land. I will chase Babylon away from her land in a flash. I will appoint whoever is chosen for her. (Rev 17:16,17)   For who is like me? Who will issue me a summons? Who is the shepherd who can stand against me? "  Jer 50:44        Rev 6:17 

 He will become very strong, but not by his own power. He will cause astounding devastation and will succeed in whatever he does. He will destroy those who are mighty, the holy people. 25 He will cause deceit to prosper, and he will consider himself superior. When they feel secure, he will destroy many and take his stand against the Prince of princes. Yet he will be destroyed, but not by human power.”  Dan 8:24,25  (Rev 16:19,20)

These Beasts are not found in Satan’s political world that Michael comes against.  They are false shepherds who rule over God’s anointed and brethren.  Rev 13: 5-7,11,12,14

“The anointed and their other sheep companions recognize (really?) that by following the lead of the Governing Body, they are in fact following their leader, Christ.  Wt 9/15/2010”

The anointed apostle Paul said, “Am I now trying to win the approval of human beings, or of God? Or am I trying to please people? If I were still trying to please people, I would not be a servant of Christ.”  Gal 1:10

Peter and the apostles replied, “We must obey God rather than people.”  Acts 5:29

There are two connotations I can see in the meaning of “Who is Like God”.

 Nothing built within this world can compare itself to, or with, the Father; yet the Watchtower continually does by saying “Jehovah and/with the organization”.  Isa 40:25

Jesus, the Head of the anointed Body of Christ and God’s Temple, (1 Pet 2:5,9,10; 1 Cor 3:16,17; Eph 2:20-22) and is the only comparison to God, that he will allow.

Both of these are the basis for Armageddon; the restoration of God’s sovereignty; the restoration of God’s Temple/priesthood. 2 Cor 10:3-5

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JW Insider said:

The Bible never makes a specific point about identifying Michael as either Jesus or Immanuel or Christ.

Then why do men? If there are scriptures that refute what these men say, then why do these men say it is so and who are we to believe? There are scriptures that contradict this idea of Michael being Jesus. The worship accounts make it clear that Michael cannot be Jesus. Even if you call it obeisance, scripture still refutes the claim.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Witness said:

1 Thess 4:16 - For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout] with the archangel’s voice, and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first. (Rev 1:10,12,13)

Great point, What King announces himself? He doesn't, it is his under-servants who do the announcing. 

18 minutes ago, Witness said:

 Nothing built within this world can compare itself to, or with, the Father; yet the Watchtower continually does by saying “Jehovah and/with the organization”.  Isa 40:25

Jesus, the Head of the anointed Body of Christ and God’s Temple, (1 Pet 2:5,9,10; 1 Cor 3:16,17; Eph 2:20-22) and is the only comparison to God, that he will allow.

agreed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

Lazarus obeyed Jesus' voice and came "on out" of his tomb. "those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out".  "My sheep know my voice".  Job: "You will call" .  The dead will answer. 

Jesus is both King and High Priest forever according to the manner of Melchizedek.

How does this answer the question I raised? What King announces himself? 

 

29 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

This means that the first resurrection must have begun early in Christ’s presence, and it continues “during his presence.

When exactly did this happen, I mean Christ's presence,  according to scripture? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nana Fofana said:

 

This answers NOTHING of what your position is. If I wanted to hear from the WT, I'd look it up myself. I want to know how YOU fit the two. If it is the same, then by all means put it into your own words and support it with scripture and I'll be happy to discuss, but If all you are going to do is point to a website, then forget it. This is a discussion board to bounce our ideas, thoughts and understandings off of each other in order to grow more in depth of our understanding about this world we live in and the people that exist here. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Nana Fofana said:

SOME OF THE THINGS I SAID ARE MY OWN WORDS. 

ALL  ARE, REGARDLESS,   ideas, thoughts and understandings WITH WHICH I COMPLETELY AGREE , AND I DON'T SAY THAT LIGHTLY. 

AND I WOULDN'T SAY IT AT ALL, UNLESS I'D JUST READ THEM  ,PROMPTED BY QUESTIONS AND CONTRARY ASSERTIONS RAISED HERE, AND MARVELED AT HOW VERY MUCH I AGREE, AND HOW VERY AGREEABLE AN EXPERIENCE THAT IS- THAT I SO WISH I COULD SHARE WITH YOU ALL.  :_)

 

Your feelings are your feelings, but I'm not about to sit here and read a cut and paste from WT. If what they say is exactly what you feel/believe, ok fine but I'm not reading pages from them. I'd much rather read what you feel and believe from your own words. I understand and will take your position into thought the next time we discuss. I doubt we will because I cannot fathom a person who stands convicted by what the WT says but cannot put it into their own words for meaningful discussion. 

 

Good day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My understanding is that Jesus is one person, Michael is another person. 

If anyhow Jesus would be the Michael, than at the end of his prayer, bro on stage would be able to tell with no problem, and without surprise to public, "in Michael name, amen" :)))))))))  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IT WAS COMMON PRACTICE IN JEWISH SOCIETY TO HAVE NAME CHANGES WHEN A PERSON'S  LIFE HAD DRAMATIC CHANGES.

and plenty of examples of that in the Bible, too.

Sometimes they were interchangeable, sometimes not.

In our cultural background , Superman is REALLY Superman, but his birth name was Kal-El, and he also goes by Clark Kent.

Bruce Wayne is...uh ... Bruce Wayne and he goes by the name Batman, but is also called The Dark Knight.

If you had two cows named, and  described in great detail ... as Michael the Archangel, and Jesus both were ... BY WHAT THEY WERE ABLE TO DO ...and it was the same description ... AND the farm could only have one cow ... the most reasonable explanation would be it was the same cow.

Problems arise when you try to milk a squirrel to make butter.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

COMMON PRACTICE IN JEWISH SOCIETY

do i understand well? You are talking only about Jewish society, earthly people? You are not talking, i guess, about possibility that Spirits society members passing through the transition of changing names? I don't no what verse show us that angels or princes go through some personal drama in heaven and get new, different name. 

Or do i must lightening a little :))))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the angel whose job it was to teach Adam and Ever correct theology was originally named "Lucifer" which I understand means "Bearer of Light" ... but when he committed treason and rebelled against God, and lied to them ... his name changed to "Satan" which I understand means "Slanderer" ... but I am going from 50 year old memory.

So... angelic creatures can change names also ... and be reclassified WITH that name change ...from angels of God, to demons.

The principle of "job change --> name change"  has plenty of examples.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

The principle of "job change --> name change"

like your previous comment.

What was first job of The Word? Create! What was the first job of Michael? To fight! What was the first job of Jesus? To dye!

So Jesus get back to previous job position - to fight,again. After he will finish fighting, then he will get back to first job of creating, again? Or to some other future job change with name change? :) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jehovah has NEVER changed ... although he has changed his mind many times when entreated to do so, and he DOES "learn as he goes along".

He was genuinely surprised when children were offered to the fires of the god Moloch as human sacrifices, and before that there was of course ... the dinosaurs ... which did not end well, for them.

And the name "Jehovah" is in ENGLISH, a standard convention since about AD 1600 when the letter "J" was invented, and the name is different in different languages, the same as Jesus' name is different in different languages.

I under understand in Spanish my name James is pronounced HIGH-ME, or Santiago ....

Who knew?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J.R. Ewing
On 10/5/2017 at 2:22 PM, Shiwiii said:

How does this answer the question I raised? What King announces himself? 

How, does your "lack" of history answer the question raised?

I am Darius the great king, king of kings, king of countries containing all kinds of men, king in this great earth far and wide, son of

    Hello guest!
, an
    Hello guest!
, a Persian, son of a Persian, an
    Hello guest!
, having Aryan lineage.

Many ancient Kings announced, boasted, and exalted themselves, even to be glorified as Gods, after a conquest. I am Darius!!!!!

    Hello guest!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, J.R. Ewing said:

How, does your "lack" of history answer the question raised?

I am Darius the great king, king of kings, king of countries containing all kinds of men, king in this great earth far and wide, son of

    Hello guest!
, an
    Hello guest!
, a Persian, son of a Persian, an
    Hello guest!
, having Aryan lineage.

 

 

Many ancient Kings announced, boasted, and exalted themselves, even to be glorified as Gods, after a conquest. I am Darius!!!!!

    Hello guest!

You just wrote "after a conquest" that, to me, does not indicate an arrival but rather a war cry after the victory. 

from your own source:

Darius the King says: This which has been done, all that by the will of Ahuramazda I did. Ahuramazda bore me aid, until I did the work. May Ahuramazda protect me from harm, and my royal house, and this land: this I pray of Ahuramazda, this may Ahuramazda give to me!

 

Notice here all of the past tense used in his boasting. Nothing indicates he proclaimed himself upon arrival of anything. 

 

context, context, context my friend. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J.R. Ewing

Now! Now let’s not try to justify an “error” that was made. Conquest, or on the thrown, like any Roman Emperor, can announce themselves, indoors or outdoors, I am the mighty, Caesar!!! to the people, or to the Senate.

The context is there, and so, is your refusal to acknowledge it. So, your “presumption” of “What King announces himself” can simply be stipulated on the battlefield, after a conquest (Battlefield), or to an audience, Sorry! Better luck next time.

So, context! Context! In the correct frame of mind, next time. History speaks for itself! B|

 

Now, let's get this bird, back on track, without diversions, the question is 

 

Jesus and Michael

without deviations!!!!:ph34r:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Now! Now let’s not try to justify an “error” that was made. Conquest, or on the thrown, like any Roman Emperor, can announce themselves, indoors or outdoors, I am the mighty, Caesar!!! to the people, or to the Senate.

The context is there, and so, is your refusal to acknowledge it. So, your “presumption” of “What King announces himself” can simply be stipulated on the battlefield, after a conquest (Battlefield), or to an audience, Sorry! Better luck next time.

So, context! Context! In the correct frame of mind, next time. History speaks for itself! B|

 

Now, let's get this bird, back on track, without diversions, the question is 

 

Jesus and Michael

without deviations!!!!:ph34r:

You just said it again, "after a conquest". I think you are confusing the point about where a King announces his victory and a king that announces his entrance. 

I'm not sure about your angle, maybe you want to find some obscure person in history who was a king and announced himself. So be it, there may be one, but the overall consensus is that a king, a true king, does not announce his entrance. That is why he has subjects running ahead of him preparing the way. Now lets get back to the topic, like you said. Who was the forerunner to Jesus the first time? Wasn't it John the baptist? Wasn't he the one to make the path straight? Was Jesus the King then? I would say yes He was, but there were somethings that needed to be put into place (fulfilled) prior to letting the world know He was the King. Think about this also, did Jesus announce to the world at or before His crucifixion that He was in fact the King of the Jews? Nope, He told Pilate and Pilate made that declaration to the people. So I say again, a King does not announce himself and as the historical accounts in the Bible reveal, Jesus did not announce Himself in a fashion of glorious entrance as king, he left that up to others. So the claim that Jesus is Michael is looking more and more unlikely by means of Biblical reference. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J.R. Ewing
58 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

You just said it again, "after a conquest". I think you are confusing the point about where a King announces his victory and a king that announces his entrance. 

Conquest, or on the thrown, like any Roman Emperor can announce, indoors or outdoors, I am the mighty, Caesar!!!

No, angle, just proving how wrong your point was!

But, since you can't accept when you're wrong? no further discussion needed.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J.R. Ewing
58 minutes ago, Shiwiii said:

You just said it again, "after a conquest". I think you are confusing the point about where a King announces his victory and a king that announces his entrance. 

Conquest, or on the thrown, like any Roman Emperor can announce, indoors or outdoors, I am the mighty, Caesar!!!

No, angle, just proving how wrong your point was!

But, since you can't accept when you're wrong? no further discussion needed.:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Conquest, or on the thrown, like any Roman Emperor can announce, indoors or outdoors, I am the mighty, Caesar!!!

No, angle, just proving how wrong your point was!

 

 

But, since you can't accept when you're wrong? no further discussion needed.:D

So you reject the Biblical support I have given you so that you can continue to argue that a king announces himself. 

Like I said, sure there may have been one or two who have announced themselves, but like anything else there are exceptions to the standard. But you hold fast to the notion just because I do not agree with you. ok, you're right....sheesh. 

Shall I post this three times so that I one up your double posts for emphasis? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest J.R. Ewing
7 hours ago, Shiwiii said:

Like I said, sure there may have been one or two who have announced themselves, but like anything else there are exceptions to the standard.

Gee Whiz! Good sir, are we referring to your denial on the mistake you initially made and refused to acknowledge it, the first time? In ancient time, anyone with “authority” would announce themselves to signal their superiority?

Or is it, the “fact” that even Jesus “announced” himself to a Samaritan woman, on who he really was in John 4:26.

26Jesus answered, “I who speak to you am He.”

That was also the message from the apostles.

1 John 1:5

5And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you: God is light, and in Him, there is no darkness at all.

 

Were the apostles, not ambassadors of Christ? by Jesus commission and God anointing them with the holy spirit?

 

Now ask yourself? Why should anyone “believe” a person that can’t even accept the error of the Pharisees? As for your “LOL”, I think you just proved the point for me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Gee Whiz! Good sir, are we referring to your denial on the mistake you initially made and refused to acknowledge it, the first time? In ancient time, anyone with “authority” would announce themselves to signal their superiority?

who is this "we"? Do you have a mouse in your pocket or are you and Gnosis one and the same person? If any sane person were to read this thread they would see clearly that I have admitted that there may have been one or two persons who announced themselves, however the evidence shows that it is not customary for a king to do so. 

 

17 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Or is it, the “fact” that even Jesus “announced” himself to a Samaritan woman, on who he really was in John 4:26.

26Jesus answered, “I who speak to you am He.”

You are desperately grasping at straws. I can see you need some clarification on what you seem to think is your ace in the hole. Who was Jesus speaking to here in this scripture? oh yeah, one single person, a Samaritan woman. When was the last time you heard someone announce themselves with a freaking trumpet to your face when it was just you two? oh yeah, never! 

 

17 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

That was also the message from the apostles.

1 John 1:5

5And this is the message we have heard from Him and announce to you: God is light, and in Him, there is no darkness at all.

now is when I call into question your reading comprehension. Lets break this down a little and maybe you will see the error:

"And this is the message we have heard from Him"

ok, so the apostles heard something. 

"and announce to you:"

Take that "we in the first part and you get who announced the message.....the apostles announced. Last I checked the apostles were NOT the king.

17 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Were the apostles, not ambassadors of Christ? by Jesus commission and God anointing them with the holy spirit?

You have, right here, answered and confirmed my position. It is NOT THE KING who announced anything, but rather the ambassadors/servants/subjects/slaves etc. THE KING DID NOT. 

 

17 hours ago, J.R. Ewing said:

Now ask yourself? Why should anyone “believe” a person that can’t even accept the error of the Pharisees? As for your “LOL”, I think you just proved the point for me.

Why should anyone "believe" a person who does not have reading comprehension skills necessary to discuss common sense topics? 

I'm finished discussing this with you, unless you come back with something coherent to this discussion. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IS JESUS ‘MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL’?


Watchtower Teaching WT claims that Daniel 10:13,21; 12:1; and I Thess 4:16 teach that:

1) Jesus existed as Michael the archangel before his birth to Mary; then
2) Jesus gave up his spirit existence as an angel when he entered Mary’s womb to become a
human;
3) At the resurrection he was recreated as Michael the archangel.

They describe Christ’s progressive existence as angel, then human, then angel.

‘Michael, one of the chief princes’ (Daniel 10:13). ‘Michael your prince’ (Daniel 10:21).

‘Michael the great prince’ (Daniel 12:1). JWs think that Jesus must be Michael because of

Michael’s authority over other angels as a chief prince.
The WT teaches that Jesus Christ was Michael the archangel, who was born as a human, died
and was raised up as an archangel again. They refer to Jesus Christ as Michael the archangel.
(Watchtower, 15 Feb, 1979, p.31).

Bible Teaching:
1) Michael is ‘one of the chief princes’ (10:21), but Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son in
John 3:16. ‘Begotten’ in Greek is ‘monogenes’ meaning uniqueone of a kind. Michael
being ‘one of the chief princes’ means that he is just one among a group of chief angels.

Ask: Where is Jesus called a ‘chief Prince’ in the Bible?

Ask: Where is Jesus clearly mentioned in Daniel 10:13?

Ask: Isn’t Jesus as ‘King of kings and Lord of lords’ (Revelation 19:16) much higher in
authority than one of a group of chief princes?

2) Ask: ‘To which of the angels did God ever say ‘thou art my son’?’ (Hebrews 1:5)

3) The Bible mentions Michael the archangel five times as:

1. ‘Michael, one of the chief princes’ (Daniel 10:13)

2, ‘Michael, your prince’ (Daniel 10:21)

3. ‘Michael, the great prince’ (Daniel 12:1)

4. ‘Michael the archangel . . . durst not bring against him (the devil) a railing accusation, but said The Lord rebuke thee’ (Jude 9)

5. ‘Michael and his angels fought against the dragon’ (Revelation 12:7)

Ask: Which of these verses state that Michael is Jesus Christ? None of them.

4) The WT claims support from I Thessalonians 4:16 ‘the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call,with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet’(NWT)

Ask: If using an archangel’s voice makes Jesus an archangel, then having God’s trumpet makes Jesus to be God.

Note: I Thessalonians 4:16 doesn’t explicitly say that Jesus Himself speaks with the voice of the archangel. When Jesus comes from heaven to rapture the church from earth, He will be accompanied by Michael the archangel. It is the archangel’s voice that shouts, not Jesus’ voice. Jesus doesn’t shout, but Michael does shout. This is like what happens at the end of the seven year tribulation, when Jesus returns ‘from heaven with his mighty angels’ (II Thessalonians 1:7).

If angels accompany Christ at the end of the 7 year tribulation, then clearly Michael will accompany Christ at the rapture before the 7 year tribulation, so Michael cannot be Jesus.

5) In Jude 9, Michael did not have the authority to rebuke Satan, but Jesus did have the authority as follows: Jesus said ‘Get thee hence, Satan’ (Matthew 4:10) and ‘Get thee behind me, Satan’ (Mark 8:33)

Michael said to Satan,‘The Lord rebuke thee’, proving that the only one with the authority to rebuke Satan is God. So, Matt. 4:10 proves that Jesus Christ is the Lord God.

Ask: Since Michael could not rebuke Satan in his own authority, but Jesus could and did rebuke Satan, doesn’t that mean that Michael and Jesus are different persons?

6) All the angels (Michael included) are commanded to worship Christ. (Hebrews 1:6)

7) The writer of Hebrews asks several questions about angels and Jesus Christ, which prove them to be different persons:
i) ‘Unto which of the angels said he at any time, thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?’ (Hebrews 1:5)
ii) ‘To which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?’ (Hebrews 1:13)
iii) ‘Unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come (millennium)’ (Hebrews 1:13).
iv) ‘For verily, he took not on him the nature of angels’ (Hebrews 2:16)
v) Does Michael sustain all things by the word of his power? (See Hebrews 1:3). No!
vi) Is it right to honour Michael the archangel just as you honour the Father? (John 5:23)

? Ask: Do good angels refuse worship? (Certainly). When John fell down to worship the angel, the angel rebuked him, saying ‘See thou do it not ....worship God’. (Rev 22:8,9).

The Father commands all the angels (Michael included) to worship Christ. (Heb 1:6).

The ‘proskuneo’ worship that angels refuse to accept but say to give to God, the Father commands thissame ‘proskuneo’ worship to be given to the Son. Hence the Son cannot be an angel, but must be God. True Bible students soon discover that Jesus is no mere angel, but God. This lesson must be learnt so they may ‘honour the Son just as they honour the Father’. (John 5:23 NWT).

9) Jesus Christ is unchangeable: ‘Jesus Christ the same, yesterday and today and forever’. (Hebrews 13:8). The WT view of Jesus is that He was Michael who changed to become a man, and who at his resurrection changed back to Michael the archangel.

The Watchtower Jesus is changeable. They have a false and different Jesus.

10) Jesus Christ created all the angels, including the thrones and principalities of which Michael is a chief prince of a principality. ‘For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers’. (Colossians 1:16).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Other than that, Jesus being Michael did not start with the Jehovah's Witnesses. Sheesh.

Space Merchant

You are correct. What would be the difference, about Michael in the Hebrew Bible that the majority of Christendom accepts as related?

Catholic Bible Dictionary 2009

MICHAEL (Hebrew, “Who is like God?”) The name of an archangel who appears in both the Old Testament and the New Testament (Dan 10:13, 21; 12:1; Jude 9; Rev 12:7). He is one of the three angels the Church venerates by name (with Gabriel and Raphael). In the book of Daniel, the angel Michael appears as the patron and protector of the nation of Israel.
He is given the title “prince” and contends with other angelic princes who look after Gentile nations (Dan 10:13, 21). He is also to play a leading role in Messianic times, when the Lord’s faithful will be delivered and raised up to eternal life (Dan 12:1–4). In the NT, reference is made to a dispute
between Michael and the devil over the body of
Moses, a story that probably relies on a Jewish apocryphal work called the Assumption of Moses (Jude 9). Finally, the book of Revelation depicts Michael as the leader of the angelic armies who expelled Satan and his minions from heaven (Rev 12:7–9).

Watchtower Reasoning 1989

Was Jesus Christ a real, historical person?

The Bible itself is the principal evidence that Jesus Christ is a historical person. The record in the Gospels is not a vague narrative of events at some unspecified time and in an unnamed location. It clearly states time and place in great detail. For an example, see Luke 3:1, 2, 21-23.

The first-century Jewish historian Josephus referred to the stoning of “James, the brother of Jesus who was called the Christ.” (The Jewish Antiquities, Josephus, Book XX, sec. 200) A direct and very favorable reference to Jesus, found in Book XVIII, sections 63, 64, has been challenged by some who claim that it must have been either added later or embellished by Christians; but it is acknowledged that the vocabulary and the style are basically those of Josephus, and the passage is found in all available manuscripts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This used to be very important to me, and I know all the arguments, pro, and con.

It's intellectually interesting ... in small doses ... and the older I get ... the smaller the doses I need.

There is a saying "Is this the Hill you want to die on?'

I have had and sustained enough cannonades from the REAL world that I no longer care if Jesus is Michael ... or not.

It's just not important to me ...... anymore.

Plus ... you have to give SOME consideration to the apparent mental competence of those who do still intensely care about such things.

 

Gravity Electricity Wind .mp42 CHAIR pORNEA .mp4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

It's intellectually interesting ... in small doses ...

 

9 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Plus ... you have to give SOME consideration to the apparent mental competence of those who do still intensely care about such things.

Agree, absolutely !

While watching second video with Gary's illustrations, examples, explanations in plastic way expressed ... yeah, even small doses of mental competence were NOT been visible, for sure. 

After mental gymnastic to understand and mental visualization (making  picture on/of subjects) about given lesson  on what porneia is and what is  not ::::: you can cry or laugh ...out loud. Or both... out loud.  What ever you choose is better then listen him /them again. :)))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gone Away I'll have to be brief because I have no access to my research information to post it here. The belief started centuries ago. Some will say around the 7th-9th century, others have information going centuries back, but such info is small. Most information we have today is in regards to the 16th-18th century, with such ones like John Calvin who also has this belief, as with others, which also reflects that of biblical passages that seem to equal Jesus to Michael in both title and or action, perhaps even more things.

Moreover, there is a literal counterpart to JWs, known as SDAs, who also has this view, but maintain an Orthodoxy approach and they not only see Micheal as Jesus, but they see him as God,f or such ones are Trinitarians.

When I do get back, I'll be happy to post here my findings from a few years back regarding this whole Jesus/Michael thing and the view of others on this matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Srecko Sostar They continued it because early Christians also maintain this view despite some of them breaking off into other odd teachings, an example would be molding the Trinity into the mix, referring to Jesus/Michael as God. But to be brief, people see Jesus as not only the Son of God, but as a Mighty Warrior as well, and it is understandable by many as to whom did God put to lead the legion of Angels that will fight against they wicked.

@Malum Intellectus Yep. I'll be able to post more information when I get back to my main location, for I do have a lot of findings on such information.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Yep. I'll be able to post more information when I get back to my main location, for I do have a lot of findings on such information.

It’s an interesting question. In the category of fun facts. The book of watchers and the book of parables give certain insight, just as the Islamic interpretation of Michael. Yet, the more effective use of Michael was in the Chaldean/Babylonian time.

Encyclopedia of Angels

Michael
The most prominent and greatest angel in Christian, Jewish, and Islamic lore. Michael means in Hebrew
“who is like God” or “who is as God.” Michael is Chaldean in origin. In
ANGELOLOGIES, his chief roles
are many: he is warrior, priest, protector, healer, and guardian. He holds numerous offices in heaven: he is
chief of the
VIRTUES and ARCHANGELS, one of the ANGELS OF THE PRESENCE, a PRINCE OF LIGHT, ANGEL
OF TRUTH, and angel of repentance, righteousness, mercy, and salvation. Some of his roles overlap with
those of other great archangels, Uriel, Gabriel, and Raphael; of the four, he is the primary aspect of the

ANGEL OF THE LORD. Michael also shares similarities with Metatron and Melchizedek. He also has duties as the ANGEL OF DEATH.

Dictionary of Angels

Sabathiel (Sabbathi)-in Jewish cabala, a spirit (intelligence) of the planet Saturn. He receives the divine light of the Holy Spirit and communicates
it to the dwellers in his kingdom. In Mosaic lore, Sabathiel is one of 7 princes "who stand continually before God, and to whom are given the
spirit-names of the planets." [Rf: Cornelius Agrippa, Three Books of Occult Philosophy 111.1

What makes the concept similar is the meaning, “who is like god”. Of course, the interpretation of John 1:1 could be construed to be similar. Trinity would be at odds since Trinity cannot measure, “who is like God” to “is god” in a contextual way. That would make the intent different. And God doesn’t make things confusing.

My observation was strictly on the comment “it did not start with JW’s” which is correct. This manifestation began with the concept of Christ coming to earth as the son of God, the Messiah, and the son of man. Time constraint make this visionary, seem troubling, but not if we consider this vision with Peter’s saying in 2 Peter3:8 and the psalmist that echoed the same in Psalms 90:4 Therefore, Jesus preparation was but only a few days ago!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Gone Away said:

Interesting quotes, but still too light on detail. Dates and source examples needed.

I believe you have asked space merchant to prevail as a good researcher. However, may I ask what your disagreement is with the quote “it did not start with JW’s” that would require a more in-depth discussion? Are you not a JW? I am simply referring to the concept of JW’s not being the first to research this ancient manifestation.

The mindset would require only one interpretation, of many. Can that be possible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Malum Intellectus said:

may I ask what your disagreement is with the quote “it did not start with JW’s”

None.

I believe I asked  if there are any dates and source examples to substantiate the statement: "Jesus being Michael did not start with the Jehovah's Witnesses."

That doesn't mean I disagree with it.

Perhaps to clarify: 

Are any dates and source examples to substantiate the statement: "Jesus being Michael did not start with the Jehovah's Witnesses." other than what is stated in the Bible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Gone Away said:

I believe I asked  if there are any dates and source examples to substantiate the statement: "Jesus being Michael did not start with the Jehovah's Witnesses."

I see. Perhaps the difficulty lies with the complete phrase "Jesus being Michael did not start with the Jehovah's Witnesses."

To better clarify my statement, I will draw attention to the latter portion of the phrase “did not start with JW’s” that interested me, as factual. Jesus Being Michael would have to be left up to interpretation. Generally, those that debate the Watchtower? Usually, resort to the Watchtower’s reasoning book. In that book? The Watchtower “asks” a question.

However, in the 19 century, the Bible students were framing this question with specific notations as, how to understand the symbolism of Michael as an authority figure. The intent of the ancients then lies with this symbolism that the Watchtower accepts.

This result is graphically described by the Prophet— [B147] "The noise of a multitude in the mountains [kingdoms] like as of a great people; a tumultuous noise of the kingdoms of nations gathered together: the Lord of hosts mustereth the host of battle." Isa. 13:4 "THE VOICE OF THE ARCHANGEL" is another striking symbol of similar import. The name "archangel" signifies chief messenger; and our anointed Lord himself is Jehovah's Chief Messenger—the "Messenger of the Covenant." (Mal. 3:1) Daniel refers to the same personage, calling him Michael, which name signifies who as God—an appropriate name for him who is "the express image of the Father's person," and the representative of his authority and power. The voice of the Archangel represents Christ's authority and command. This symbol, then, represents Christ as taking control, or beginning his reign and issuing his commands, his official orders, announcing the change of dispensation by the enforcement of the laws of his kingdom.

The same thought is differently expressed by Daniel, when he says, Then shall Michael, the great Prince, "stand up." To stand up signifies to assume authority, to give commands. See "ariseth," Isa. 2:19,21. Another illustration of this symbol is from David, who says of Christ prophetically, "He uttered his voice; the earth melted." The great time of trouble will be precipitated, and the earth (organized society) will melt, or disintegrate, under the change of administration going into effect when the new King utters his voice of command. At his command, systems of error, civil, social and religious, must go down, however old or firmly entrenched and fortified they may be. The sword out of his mouth shall cause the havoc: The truth on every subject, and in all its varied aspects, shall judge men, and, under his power and overruling, shall cause the overturning of evil and error in all their thousand forms.

"THE TRUMP OF GOD." Many seem thoughtlessly to entertain the idea that this trumpet will be a literal sound on [B148] the air. But this will be seen to be an unreasonable expectation, when it is noticed that Paul here refers to what the Revelator designates "The Seventh Trumpet," the "Last Trump" in a series of symbolic trumpets. (Rev. 11:15; 1 Cor. 15:52) The proof that these references are to the same trumpet is found in the record of the events connected with each. Paul mentions the resurrection, and the establishment of the Lord's Kingdom, as connected with "the trump of God," and the Revelator mentions the same with even greater minuteness. The propriety of calling the "seventh," or "last trump," the "trump of God," is evident, too, when we remember that the events mentioned under the preceding six trumpets of Revelation refer to humanity's doings, while the seventh refers specially to the Lord's work, and covers the "Day of the Lord." Since the six preceding trumpets were symbols—and this is generally admitted by commentators and students who make any claim as expositors of Revelation—it would be a violation of reason and common sense to expect the seventh, the last of the series, to be a literal, audible sound on the air. And not only so, but it would be out of harmony with the Lord's general methods, as well as with those statements of Scripture indicating the secrecy of his coming; for a thief never sounds a trumpet to announce his arrival.

 

*** w10 4/1 p. 19 Is Jesus the Archangel Michael? ***

In view of the foregoing, what can we conclude? Jesus Christ is Michael the archangel. Both names—Michael (meaning “Who Is Like God?”) and Jesus (meaning “Jehovah Is Salvation”)—focus attention on his role as the leading advocate of God’s sovereignty. Philippians 2:9 states: “God exalted him [the glorified Jesus] to a superior position and kindly gave him the name that is above every other name.”

It is important to note that the human birth of Jesus was not the beginning of his life. Before Jesus was born, Mary was visited by an angel who told her that she would conceive a child by means of holy spirit and that she should name the child Jesus. (Luke 1:31) During his ministry, Jesus often spoke of his prehuman existence.—John 3:13; 8:23, 58.

So Michael the archangel is Jesus in his prehuman existence. After his resurrection and return to heaven, Jesus resumed his service as Michael, the chief angel, “to the glory of God the Father.”—Philippians 2:11

 

You may consider, further research with the book known in the western world as the “book of Enoch”. There you can find the reference to the archangel Michael. This reference, as previously stated was around 300 B.C. which was carried down by the Chaldean/Babylonian culture.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Gone Away said:

Are any dates and source examples to substantiate the statement: "Jesus being Michael did not start with the Jehovah's Witnesses." other than what is stated in the Bible?

 

Based on 1 Thess 4, etc., it certainly makes sense, and it's not surprising that several groups had already come up with this belief. I think a good place to start is to check out the references in Wikipedia, from the point where the topic of Michael as Christ comes up, right up to the mention of the position held by Jehovah's Witnesses. The rest of this post is just a copy and paste from Wikipedia:

  • Citing Hengstenberg, John A. Lees, in International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, states: "The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the 'child' and the archangel in Rev 12:1-17, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel."[11] Charles Haddon Spurgeon[52][53] stated that Jesus is Michael “the only Archangel”,[54] and that he is God the Son, and co-equal to the Father.[52] In SpurgeonÂ’s view, "archangel" means "head of the angels" rather than "head angel," and is a title similar to "Leader of the host." (Daniel 8:11)[55][56][not in citation given]
  • Within Anglicanism, the controversial bishop Robert Clayton (died 1758) proposed that Michael was the Logos and Gabriel the Holy Spirit.[57]Controversy over Clayton's views led the government to order his prosecution, but he died before his scheduled examination.[58][59]
 . . .
Seventh-day Adventists[edit]
170px-Le_Grand_Saint_Michel%2C_by_Raffae
 
Le Grand Saint Michel, by Raphael (Raffaello Sanzio), Archangel Michael defeating evil
  • Seventh-day Adventists, being of the Protestant heritage, lineage and faith, believe that Michael is another name for the eternal Son of the Father, the Heavenly Christ, and another name for the Word-of-God (as in John 1) before he became incarnate as Jesus. "Archangel" (meaning "Chief of the Angels", "highest messenger") was the leadership position as held by the Word-of-God as Michael while among the angels. According to Adventist theology, Michael was considered the "eternal Word", and not a created being or created angel, and the one by whom all things were created. The Word was then born incarnate as Jesus.[60]
  • Seventh-day Adventists believe the name "Michael" is significant in showing who he is, just as "Immanuel" (which means "God with us") is about who Jesus is. They believe that name "Michael" signifies "one who is God" and that as the "Archangel" or "chief or head of the angels" he led the angels and thus the statement in Revelation 12:7-9 identifies Jesus as Michael.[61]
  • Seventh-day Adventists believe that "Michael" is but one of the many titles applied to the Son of God, the second person of the Godhead. According to Adventists, such a view does not in any way conflict with the belief in his full deity and eternal preexistence, nor does it in the least disparage his person and work.[62] In support of the Seventh-day Adventist belief, Michael is also identified by them as being the very commander of Heavenly legions of the hosts of the LORD, God's invincible army, which helped Joshua son of Nun to lead Israel in to conquering Jericho [Joshua 5:14 - "And he said, Nay; but as captain of the host of the LORD am I now come. And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and did worship, and said unto him, What saith my Lord unto his servant?"]
  • In the Seventh-day Adventist view, the statement in some translations of 1 Thessalonians 4:13-18: "For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven, with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God" identifies Jesus as Archangel, which is Michael.[63] (Other translations have "For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God.")[64]And the Seventh-day Adventists believe that John 5:25-29 also confirms that Jesus and Michael are the same.[63]

 

  1. 11 ^ John A. Lees, "Michael" in James Orr (editor), ''The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia''(Eerdmans 1939)". Internationalstandardbible.com. 2007-07-06. Retrieved 2012-12-27.
  2. 52 ^ Jump up to:a b The Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) - With slight revisions by C. H. Spurgeon Archived 2010-04-07 at the Wayback Machine. - spurgeon.org - Phillip R. Johnson - 2001 - Retrieved 12 September 2014.
  3. Jump up53 ^ Morning and Evening - Charles Haddon Spurgeon - Devotionals by Spurgeon Sermons - Spurgeon Sermons with C.H. Spurgeon - Retrieved 12 September 2014.
  4. Jump up54 ^ The Angelic Life - Charles Haddon Spurgeon - Sermon No. 842.
  5. Jump up55 ^ Grace Abounding in a Believer's Life by Charles Haddon Spurgeon, Robert Hall and Lance Wubbels 1996 ISBN 1883002095 page 54
  6. Jump up56 ^ Weapon The Blood of the Lamb, the Conquering Weapon - Charles Haddon Spurgeon - Sermon No. 2043.
  7. Jump up57 ^ Robert Clayton, An Essay on Spirit 1751
  8. Jump up58 ^ Dictionary of National Biography: Clayton, Robert
  9. Jump up. . .
  10. Jump up60 ^ Seventh Day Adventists: What do they believe? by Val Waldeck Pilgrim Publications (April 5, 2005) page 16
  11. Jump up61 ^ "The Remnant". Adventist World. Archived from the original on 2012-07-24. Retrieved 2011-12-05.
  12. Jump up62 ^ Seventh-day Adventists Answer Questions on Doctrine, Review and Herald Publishing Association, Washington, D.C., 1957. Chapter 8 "Christ, and Michael the Archangel".
    1. 63 ^ Jump up to:a b Bible readings for the home by 7th Day Adventists. London. 1949. p. 266.

[if you get blue arrow icons over some of the references, just select/highlight and they will be easy to read, or go to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_(archangel) ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With reference to the references, note the difficulty that Spurgeon had in reconciling Trinity with a created Michael, even though he had referred to Jesus as Michael several times:

https://scripturethoughts.wordpress.com/2011/10/24/the-identities-of-jesus-and-the-arch-angel-michael/

Charles Spurgeon moved away from his Baptist roots towards something akin to Second Adventist eschatology. (Baptists were more flexible in doctrine in the 1800's and claimed to be non-denominational, so he didn't actually leave the Baptist church.) Second Adventists, especially those who became Seventh Day Adventists, were usually happy to consider him supportive of their beliefs as he was held in high esteem by so many. He developed a post-Millerite preterist eschatology from some of the same sources that Barbour had used. From what I remember, the early Watch Tower issues under Russell quoted from him several times with the deepest respect, except when the topic was eternal suffering (hellfire).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Malum Intellectus said:

However, in the 19 century, the Bible students were framing this question with specific notations as, how to understand the symbolism of Michael as an authority figure. The intent of the ancients then lies with this symbolism that the Watchtower accepts.

It would be interesting to note, the extent by which some millerites thought as well as some Advents in support of Miller's movement. Even though some of those Advents like Barbour, Storr, and others that quite couldn’t agree with Miller, did find themselves seeking, further, answer in which they found Russell as eager to learn scripture wholeheartedly, then, what they had been taught.

The transformation from Advents to Seventh-day Adventist became a concern to the Miller movement since their value in doctrine was now being question by their own. This didn’t sway Russell to conclude his teachings by either party. This is quite evident by Russell, overall view of scripture.

However, in the end, Barbour, Storr, and others returned to their original understanding of Adventism that Russell was unable to agree with. This became evident too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With reference to reference #11 from the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia (1915 edition is in Google Books. 1933 edition link, below.), the subject is developed here, with hints as to the reasoning already available in apocryphal writings, where Ascension of Isaiah, for example had referred to him as "mediator" and "intercessor":

(11) "The archangel" (Jude 1:9). Probably also the unnamed archangel of 1Th 4:16is Michael. In the Old Testament he is mentioned by name only in Daniel. He is "one of the chief princes" (Da 10:13), the "prince" of Israel (Da 10:21), "the great prince" (Da 12:1); perhaps also "the prince of the host" (Da 8:11). In all these passages Michael appears as the heavenly patron and champion of Israel; as the watchful guardian of the people of God against all foes earthly or devilish. In the uncanonical apocalyptic writings, however, Jewish angelology is further developed. In them Michael frequently appears and excretes functions similar to those which are ascribed to him in Daniel. He is the first of the "four presences that stand before God"--Michael, Gabriel, Raphael and Uriel or Phanuel (En 9:1; 40:9). In other apocryphal books and even elsewhere in En, the number of archangels is given as 7 (En 20:1-7; Tobit 12:15; compare also Re 8:2). Among the many characterizations of Michael the following may be noted: He is "the merciful and long-suffering" (En 40:9; 68:2,3), "the mediator and intercessor" (Ascension of Isaiah, Latin version 9:23; Testament of the Twelve Patriarchs, Le 5:1-19; Da 6:1-28). It is he who opposed the Devil in a dispute concerning Moses' body (Jude 1:9). This passage, according to most modern authorities, is derived from the apocryphal Assumption of Moses (see Charles' edition, 105-10). It is Michael also who leads the angelic armies in the war in heaven against "the old serpent, he that is called the Devil and Satan" (Re 12:7 ff). According to Charles, the supplanting of the "child" by the archangel is an indication of the Jewish origin of this part of the book.

The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Re 12:1-17, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel (for a full discussion see Hengstenberg, Offenbarung, I, 611-22, and an interesting survey in English by Dr. Douglas in Fairbairn's BD).

I would have added that Jesus is referred to as "Prince," in Prophecy (Isaiah 9:6), Parable (Luke 19:11-13) and in Narrative (Acts 3:15) and using the same Greek word, Satan is called the "Prince" of this world, who is to be cast out (John 16:11, Revelation 12:1-12).

The mention of "Fairbairn's BD" is Patrick Fairbairn's 6 -Volume Bible Dictionary. The Bible Encyclopedia, above, forgets to tell us where in the volumes this is, however. Probably under the entry for "Michael." I think that Fairbairn, if consistent, probably held the view he expressed in 1859 in "Introduction to the Exegetical Study of Scriptures in the New Testament," p. 233-236 where he says that all these evidences of the previous 3 pages "confirm the identification of Michael with Christ." (p.236)

content?id=Go4XAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA236&img=1&z

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Malum Intellectus said:

** w10 4/1 p. 19 Is Jesus the Archangel Michael? ***

 

10 hours ago, Malum Intellectus said:

So Michael the archangel is Jesus in his prehuman existence.

WT have interesting answer, statement on question. Interesting? YES, because John 1:1 gave INFORMATION that Jesus is/was WORD ( "Word" as name or as title or both?) in his prehuman existence --- NOT MICHAEL The archangel :)))).

WORD have Ultimate status that is much, much higher then just of angel, even archangel status is. Or does some of you think that archangel was somehow participated in creation of life and all that existing, as Word did? 

If WT said Jesus is Michael, why i have never hear or read that WT said Word is Michael???

Who was in the beginning?? Michael or Word? According to this Bible text of course. 

Surely John would named Him (Word , God or god with The or A, what ever you like) as Michael if he was been under inspiration of holy ghost, spirit while he was writing verses.

One answer is wrong. Or both are wrong? :))))  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

WT have interesting answer, statement on question. Interesting? YES, because John 1:1 gave INFORMATION that Jesus is/was WORD ( "Word" as name or as title or both?) in his prehuman existence --- NOT MICHAEL The archangel :)))).

Indeed, Jesus is the Word because he is the Prophet of whom God puts His Word in and such applies to the Christ because he is a Prophet.

The Word is God because it is God's Spoken Word. Jesus is the Word because he speaks God's Spoken Word, professes the Father. The Word is God because the Word itself originated with God, not Jesus mainly if you understand John's Introductory and what is seen in Deuteronomy and Isaiah.

As for gods/godlike ones, God the Father refers to His children as such, in heaven and on earth, Jesus is in that same category and even quoted the law in John chapter 10, Apostle Paul himself also made reference to the Most High calling his children gods/godlike ones, and in Jesus case, it is applied to the Jews. So the JWs position on The Word (the flesh named Jesus) is correct, Jesus is refereed to as a god, he is not God, for this god, also called the Word, speaks/professes The Word, that is of God as seen in the beginning.

What some also fail to believe is that they ignore the fact of what the Light means and of whom it is referring to, and John the Baptist, for we know John himself was not even existing in the Genesis Act of Creation.

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

WORD have Ultimate status that is much, much higher then just of angel, even archangel status is. Or does some of you think that archangel was somehow participated in creation of life and all that existing, as Word did? 

Yes because prior to his resurrection, God has made Jesus Lord and exalted him above the angels, according to Apostle Paul, even with this higher authority and power, Jesus is still refereed to as the Word, just as he is still refereed to as the Christ/Messiah.

The Bible only speaks of one Archangel, and that is Michael, even before that this one Archangel had existed for there are clues in the Old Testament.Plus it is clear that Jesus was not Jesus at all, for God sent an angel to have the child named Jesus, we knowing Jesus is a Prince even before he was on earth, it is safe to say he was indeed the one who was sent and before that he was just working by his Father's side, being the only one of whom God took high delight in and the like.

As for the Word, it would depend on what you are referring to, Jesus or that of God's Spoken Word that is the Word, of which we see in the Genesis Act of Creation.

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If WT said Jesus is Michael, why i have never hear or read that WT said Word is Michael???

Probably because they are making it know and professing Jesus' role on earth rather than his role in Heaven. Jesus is only known as the Word because he professes God's purpose and will - that is, if you paid attention to what God himself had said in the Old Testament and that of those who profess the coming of the Prophet sent by God, God's Son. That being said, Jesus/Michael is refereed to as The Word of God (The Word) in Revelations as well.

I am pretty sure WT knows that Jesus/Michael, is the Word, this is but a snippet of what they have said:

In his prehuman existence Jesus was called “the Word.” (Joh 1:1) He also had the personal name Michael. By retaining the name Jesus after his resurrection (Ac 9:5), “the Word” shows that he is identical with the Son of God on earth. His resuming his heavenly name Michael and his title (or name) “The Word of God” (Re 19:13) ties him in with his prehuman existence. The very name Michael, asking as it does, “Who Is Like God?” points to the fact that Jehovah God is without like, or equal, and that Michael his archangel is his great Champion or Vindicator.

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Who was in the beginning?? Michael or Word? According to this Bible text of course.

The Word, if you take into account of John's Introductory, as well as Mark's, being identical to that of Genesis 1:1. God's Word was in the beginning because he spoke everything into existence, in combination with his great limitless power. The Light John refers to was indeed God's Son for Jesus is indeed the Light of this World, in addition, he is refereed to as well as the morning star.

Yes according to the Bible, only if you take everything into context, for anyone can read John 1:1 and ignore the verses after it, anyone can just read John 1:1 and not make an effort to see the cross references and passages that makes such a verse understandable, it comes to a point where even the non religious have to correct those of mainstream Christendom on this matter.

In the end, people can say they read the Bible everyday but remain ignorant to context, such ones will also not make the effort to study and realize what a verse means, example would be the captured women, to which some today refer to as sex slaves or that of cannibalism, people will read into the passages and not take in context, thus, not knowing what such passages mean or as to what came about of such, for the answer, to be brief, is the sex slave one is due to vengeance and it is not what the modern mind of men think vs Bible times, for the women were not cursed compared to their original captors. The other was due to a great famine, the reason as to why cannibalism was even present, in the end, such ones had quite the outcome. Not taking things into context with research only makes one not aware of what a passage even means, even to the point of rejecting half and or all of the Old Testament or saying that Apostle Paul was not a follower of Jesus, but of Satan. Therefore, we have to really understand what John 1:1 means otherwise the one would fit the category of Bible readers who are not serious about context and research. Only those who take the Bible serious can tackle such passages.

4 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Surely John would named Him (Word , God or god with The or A, what ever you like) as Michael if he was been under inspiration of holy ghost, spirit while he was writing verses.

One answer is wrong. Or both are wrong? :))))  

Well the Septuagint and Coptic Text gives you a very obvious clue to John's Introductory - check the cross-references and see what God said to His people regarding the one who is to come who will speak His Word.

Last I check, Jesus had the outpouring of the Holy Spirit as soon as he got out of the water during Baptism, so of course he had the Holy Spirit as well as the works and hat he says not being of His own, but of the Father, for the Father abides in Jesus, and in True Christians.

John also knew the law of the Jews, just as Jesus have, since Jesus was a born Jew, and just like Paul, in addition to others. So it is no surprise John knows who God is, John knowing who Jesus is, those who followed Jesus, moreover, John clear awareness of the practices of such ones like the Jews and Samaritans and others.

The real question is, if you accept what John is truly trying to convey rather than accepting something without bearing any understanding of what is being said. This also goes for those who do not truly understand the Revelation of John also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, DefenderOTT said:

It would be interesting to note, the extent by which some millerites thought as well as some Advents in support of Miller's movement. Even though some of those Advents like Barbour, Storr, and others that quite couldn’t agree with Miller, did find themselves seeking, further, answer in which they found Russell as eager to learn scripture wholeheartedly, then, what they had been taught.

Yes, the beginning of reinterpretation of scripture was an interesting event. I guess there are some that need to use outside sources in order to accept their own publications. But a good researcher becomes agreeable. I have no problems with the Watchtower interpretation since they seem to make adjustments as new evidence is found, including linguistics. The majority of Christianity is satisfied with what has been written with their own old interpretation.

I also don’t place any faith in “Wikipedia” Web Encyclopedia, since anyone can edit any page. When they started the program, there were a lot of false entries that have taken decades to clean. That in itself doesn’t mean, everything has been corrected. However, they still encourage people to edit without fear. Yet any information is probative. It just depends on the value you place on it. The Watchtower has done a wonderful job with its publications, and Bible, knowledge. They, should open an accredited Bible School of Bible Knowledge?

Meanwhile, this might interest you, since Jesus is known by many names. Emmanuel, Master, logos (the word), Son of God, Son of Man, Son of David, Lamb of God, Last Adam, King of the Jews, Rabbani, Teacher, Good Shepard, etc.

Literary Origins of the Archangel’s Legendary Roles
Hear Michael speaking! I am he who stands in the sight of God every hour. As the Lord lives, in whose sight I stand, I do not stop
one day or one night praying incessantly for the human race, and I indeed pray for those who are on the earth; but they do not cease
committing iniquity and fornications, and they do not do any good while they are placed on earth; and you have consumed in vanity the time in which you ought to have repented.1 The Apocalypse of Paul (Visio Pauli)

St. Michael the archangel appears by name in scripture only five times: three times in the Old Testament (Daniel 10:13, 21 and 12:1) and twice in the New Testament (Revelation 12:7–9 and the Epistle of Jude 9). Despite this relative paucity of references to the archangel in canonical literature, there exists a vast store of legendary material from the
Middle Ages concerning the archangel’s roles in the unfolding of human history. In this chapter, I explore the literary origins of St. Michael’s medieval legendary roles by examining the representations of the archangel in biblical and extra-biblical literature.
The development of the archangel’s roles in this literature as healer and guardian, intercessor, psychopomp, and warrior-angel accounts for his popular appeal in early medieval England. Indeed, the representations of the archangel in the literature reviewed in this chapter can be seen as having served as the principal quarry for early medieval English writers in their representations of St. Michael the archangel. Many of the texts of the biblical era, though by no means all, which refer to St. Michael fall under the genre of “apocalypse” in their form, character, and/or content.2 Often conveying a message of the imminent end of the world, apocalyptic literature is collectively, in history and the future promise of the heavenly realm. The implicit conflict of the apocalyptic impulse is played out in what Bernard McGinn has called “the triple eschatological pattern of [present] crisis – [imminent] judgment – [future] vindication.”3 In this tripartite paradigm, it is the hope for the vindication of salvation, the transcendence of death, that provides the believer with the strength to endure the present crisis. In the context of this eschatological drama St. Michael commands a significant presence in the literature of the Old and New Testament eras.

Although St. Michael’s character and roles appear nearly fully developed in early Hebrew literature (especially 1 Enoch and Daniel), there is a significant shift of emphasis between the literatures of the Old Testament and those of the New Testament. In the biblical and extra-biblical literature of the Old Testament, St. Michael strides across the world stage in the past, present, and future. His intercessory powers
span the three periods of human time, and his efficacy extends into the eternity of God’s time. In the canonical books of the New Testament, however, St. Michael virtually withdraws from the stage of the present. Instead, Christ is proclaimed the sole mediator, “whose saving accomplishments . . . embrace past, present, and future,” on behalf of Christians in the New Testament.5 St. Michael’s appearance in Revelation 12:7–9 underscores his withdrawal from the present, while emphasizing his dual roles in the past and future: expelling the fallen angels at the beginning of time and defeating the forces of evil at the end of time.

 

The thing to note, not confusing the meaning of each definition within the names. A good example would be? Yahweh, being Baal. While there were certain Hebrews that ultimately worshipped Baal? That in no way diminishes who the real God of Israel was and is, and what his modern pronunciation should sound like.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Jesus is the Word because he is the Prophet of whom God puts His Word

Bible is full of prophets ... and many of them spoke His Word.

 

3 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

The Word is God because it is God's Spoken Word

The Word is described as god, God. Michael never has been described as god or God. Prophetic Word or word in Isaiah described one person, child that is born as;   Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. So who is Jesus? Who is Michael the archangel? Who was in the beginning? God Jesus or God Word or not God Michael? Was Michael first and last? 

Michael was "just" one of the chief princes, according to Daniel book. Never titled as one of "gods", but one of chief princes. So who are, what are the names of other chiefs?? When, where and why Michael get new position, new title as Archangel?

3 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

God's Word was in the beginning because he spoke everything into existence, in combination with his great limitless power.

Do you talking about JHVH VOICE (spoken words without mediator)? Guess yes, because talking about someone with limitless power. So what was the role of the Word (prehuman Light, Jesus, Michael, or who ever) if not creating with his partner, father, God? "And God said; Let be the light... let be the earth...." Was His voice created the light, earth...and all other or was his Word (Son) working job to be done? Text said all was created to him, of him, trough him". 

For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

3 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

category of Bible readers

and categories of translations too. NWT or other translations have errors. Well, errors came not only because of our misunderstanding while reading, but because of what we reading too. 

 

3 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Yes because prior to his resurrection, God has made Jesus Lord and exalted him above the angels

If Word is prehuman Jesus, as you agree he is, and as WT agree he is.... then He was already above all creations and above all angels. Do not understand "prior to his resurrection, God has made Jesus Lord and exalted him above the angels"? If he (Jesus) is Michael the archangel, then he was above angels too, because he is ARCHangel. Who was exalted above angels? Jesus human or Michael the prince?? 

Verses state: "Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place, and gave Him the name above all names, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,…

Text said that in the NAME JESUS all must knee. NOT In the NAME MICHAEL. So if Michael came to earth to be Jesus and then Jesus go back in heaven to be Michael again, as WT teach, then where is LORD (Jesus) who was exalted by God and all angels and all chief princes must knee to him, even archangel Michael also must bow down or worship his KING . Because Jesus is KING (was born as King) and Michael is just Archangel. I think all is about Hierarchy.  

But as JTR wisely said,  "It's intellectually interesting ... in small doses ..."     :))))

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2018 at 1:12 PM, Space Merchant said:

The Word is God because it is God's Spoken Word. Jesus is the Word because he speaks God's Spoken Word, professes the Father. The Word is God because the Word itself originated with God, not Jesus mainly if you understand John's Introductory and what is seen in Deuteronomy and Isaiah.

This is a very legitimate way to read John 1:1, although it is not the way we read it as JWs. It would not make much difference if it were read this way. I see a possible small problem with the way we read it, but it doesn't mean we are reading it wrong. I think the main thing that some Witnesses do (which is not the intention of the verse) is making a big emphasis on the words "A god," and then saying, SEE?!?!?! -- It only says "A" god, therefore Jesus can't be THE [Almighty] God. This is a true statement, based on other scriptures. But this scripture is going as far as possible to RAISE the level of divinity and near "universal" authority by which Christians should understand Jesus -- and it's a misuse of the intention of the verse to use it to prove he is LESS. It is only by Jesus that we can begin to understand the full range of the power and authority of the Father. Jesus therefore allows us to "SEE" God. 

I know it's a little off topic for this discussion, so I'll wait until another John 1:1 discussion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, JW Insider said:

it's a misuse of the intention of the verse to use it to prove he is LESS.

I agree. Underestimating the position and role of Jesus  is definitely a hazard for those who seek to combat the attempts made by those who seek to overestimate it. The Scriptures were simply not written for that purpose, as stated by John the apostle: 

"But these have been written down so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and because of believing, you may have life by means of his name." John 20:31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, JW Insider said:

This is a very legitimate way to read John 1:1, although it is not the way we read it as JWs. It would not make much difference if it were read this way. I see a possible small problem with the way we read it, but it doesn't mean we are reading it wrong. I think the main thing that some Witnesses do (which is not the intention of the verse) is making a big emphasis on the words "A god," and then saying, SEE?!?!?! -- It only says "A" god, therefore Jesus can't be THE [Almighty] God. This is a true statement, based on other scriptures. But this scripture is going as far as possible to RAISE the level of divinity and near "universal" authority by which Christians should understand Jesus -- and it's a misuse of the intention of the verse to use it to prove he is LESS. It is only by Jesus that we can begin to understand the full range of the power and authority if the Father. Jesus therefore allows us to "SEE" God. 

I know it's a little off topic for this discussion, so I'll wait until another John 1:1 discussion.

Indeed it is, however when I spoke of John 1:1, there was a specific passage in the Torah I was referring to of what God had made known about the one who is to come, we know this clearly as what we see in John chapter 4 when Jesus met the Samaritan woman, for he revealed himself to be that Prophet, the Messiah, the very man who speaks the Word of God.

And I do not think anyone is reading it wrong, however there are those thinking this is the silver bullet to making Jesus out to be God himself, such ones show a total disregard to not just the cross-references, but of what God himself said in the Old Testament.

That is also true for Any man who had seen Jesus had seen the Father in terms of the things Jesus did. God is Life and Jesus fully expressed that Life in the words he spoke and the works that he had done. God is Truth and Jesus fully expressed that Truth by everything he had said and and in regards to his actions, etc. Jesus is indeed Divine, but he problem is such ones will attack others for not seeing Jesus as God and automatically pull the "You Deny Jesus being God/Trinity, you deny the Christ" card, a hat-trick that gets old fast.

When I get back to my main computer with all my notes and research, I will probably post another gospel of John thread in Bible Discussion about John 1:1, for there is a lot I can say about this verse, but the focus on my last response was based on w cross-reference to John 1:1 regarding what God the Father had said as seen in the Old Testament.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2018 at 4:44 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

Bible is full of prophets ... and many of them spoke His Word.

(bear in mind, for some reason my response tends to be all bold randomly half way through)

Indeed, the scriptures does inform us of many prophets of whom God had communicated with in many ways and occasions (Hebrews 1:1), however in the Torah (Hebrew Old Testament), God speaks of the one who is coming, this specific Prophet who has not been known to the people yet, the very one who He, God, will put his words in this Prophet’s mouth. This same prophet is sent by God, and speaks of what is to come regarding the final day, for God has spoken to us in a Son (Hebrews 1:2)

Now in the Torah we will go to Deuteronomy, more specifically, Deuteronomy 18:15-19, with the focus being more on verse 18.

A New Prophet like Moses

  • (15) “The Lord your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among you, from your brothers—it is to him you shall listen— (16) just as you desired of the Lord your God at Horeb on the day of the assembly, when you said, ‘Let me not hear again the voice of the Lord my God or see this great fire any more, lest I die.’ (17) And the Lord said to me, ‘They are right in what they have spoken. (18) I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their brothers. And I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak to them all that I command him. (19) And whoever will not listen to my words that he shall speak in my name, I myself will require it of him.

Cross-references: Exodus 34:28, Numbers 12:3, Matthew 4:1, 2, 11:29, John 5:46

Now, there is no question, that Moses was indeed the meekest of men on the face of the earth during his time, but there would be one who is like him, a new prophet who is said to be like Moses himself, the very prophet who will also act as an in-between for God and men, for these men will speak to those of mankind.

The Word that God had put in this prophet’s mouth is in regards of the promise of what the Kingdom will bring that of Salvation and revealing God’s Purpose and Will and what that implies.

This prophet is indeed the one sent by God, the flesh/man, born of a woman into the Law, named Jesus, for we know of this when Mary had been visited by Gabriel, an Angel of God, Joseph, Son of David, was also informed of this news via dream for he was suspect about Mary’s pregnancy as well as what he knows about what the Law of the Land is all about (Matthew 1:20-23, 25, Luke 1:31-33, 35, 2:21). Moreover, Christ Jesus, was indeed the one Prophet that even Moses had spoken of.

We also have to take into account of what Jesus says on John 5:45-47,  which can be pointed back to Deuteronomy in the Torah:

Witnesses to Jesus

  • (45) Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. (46) For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. (47) But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?”

So it is no surprise that we see the example in John chapter 4, for we know that the Samaritans, who follow the Torah with hardcore intent, awaited the Prophet, for we know this by the conversation Jesus had with the Samaritan woman, and eventually the reaction of the Samaritan people themselves.

  • John 6:14 - When the people saw the sign that he had done, they said, “This is indeed the Prophet who is to come into the world!”

 

On 7/7/2018 at 4:44 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

The Word is described as god, God. Michael never has been described as god or God. Prophetic Word or word in Isaiah described one person, child that is born as;   Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. So who is Jesus? Who is Michael the archangel? Who was in the beginning? God Jesus or God Word or not God Michael? Was Michael first and last? 

Michael was "just" one of the chief princes, according to Daniel book. Never titled as one of "gods", but one of chief princes. So who are, what are the names of other chiefs?? When, where and why Michael get new position, new title as Archangel?

What you fail to see is that God the Father refer to all his children as gods, godlike ones, those in Heaven as well as those on Earth – gods/godlike ones (elohims and or deities ), in addition to what the passages says about sons of The Most High.

We know this for what we see in Psalms 82:1-6

Rescue the Weak and Needy

A Psalm of Asaph.

  • (1) God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment: (2) “How long will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked? Selah (3) Give justice to the weak and the fatherless; maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute. (4) Rescue the weak and the needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.” (5) They have neither knowledge nor understanding, they walk about in darkness; all the foundations of the earth are shaken. (6) I said, “You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;

Here we find out that:

  • [A] These godlike ones are in the midst of God the Father and
  • God himself refers to such ones as gods/godlike ones.

Verse 1 literally reads out God (El) takes His stands in the assembly of the gods (Elohim); He judges among the gods (Elohim).

Since all bene elohims are of Elohim, El Shaddai, and come into existence because of elohim, these sons of God are elohims, deities, gods, etc (whatever floats your boat)

Sons of God, the gods/godlike ones is a reference to us, those of us of mankind, and judges, and to focused on the scriptures itself, it is also a reference to human judges of Israel.

Therefore, even the Archangel, being of God, is indeed a god, godlike one, and while on earth, this applies also, for it is read that the Christ himself even quoted what was written about the Law

  • John 10:34, 35 – (34) Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? (35) If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken—

The Law of that Jesus spoke of, the one that is written is of the Hebrew Old Testament, the verse described above, Psalms 82:6, in addition, Jesus is known to speak of the entire Hebrew Scriptures, not just The Law of Moses alone, the same can be said of John 12:34 and 15:25 in regards to Jesus speaking of what is written.

We also see what Apostle Paul had said in 1 Corinthians 8:5

  • For although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many “gods” and many “lords”—

At Exodus 21:6; 22:8-9, the judges were called gods (elohim). However, some translations obscure this fact by translating elohim as judges while others have translated the word as God which violates the context of the passage itself. The main purpose here in this passage is that these judges represented God. So if an Israelite came before this human judge, Elohim, they were then appearing before God Himself not because these judges were God Himself but because these human authorities were God's representatives and or a Spokesman and as His representatives they were exercising His authority in His name. As such, these human judges were Elohim, that is, gods. We can also see Exodus 4:16, Moses was told that he was to serve as God to both Aaroan and to Pharaoh.

So it is no surprise that even the Jews know of such a Law that exists even to this day.

Now as for Isaiah 9:6

  • For to us a child is born, to us a son is given; and the government shall be upon his shoulder, and his name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

small quote: Hebrews often name their babies in praise to some attribute of God at work in their life.

We see in the scriptures, as well as evidence via the practices and customs of the Jews, that such names are given to people, as well as places, and these names don't mean that these people are places are therefore God. It also show us that the one who is the Christ, The Messiah, would bear this name because he represents the Eternal Father and is the Mighty God's wonderful counsel since it was God who set things in motion, i.e. The one to raised up the Messiah to carry out His purpose and will. In short, YHWH of Hosts makes it all happen.

Very soon I will make a Bible Discussion on this verse when I get through some verses in John, Acts and Corinthians.

As for Princes (Nobles, Kings, Lords, Leaders) If you read onward in the book of Daniel, Daniel was being specific of who the Great Prince actually is, we cannot choose one point and forget the other when trying to piece together context of a passage and or belief.

On 7/7/2018 at 4:44 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

Do you talking about JHVH VOICE (spoken words without mediator)? Guess yes, because talking about someone with limitless power. So what was the role of the Word (prehuman Light, Jesus, Michael, or who ever) if not creating with his partner, father, God? "And God said; Let be the light... let be the earth...." Was His voice created the light, earth...and all other or was his Word (Son) working job to be done? Text said all was created to him, of him, trough him". 

For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him. 17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.

 For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things: to whom be glory for ever. Amen.

You do not get the point, God’s Spoken Word in the very beginning, Moses did not exist, nor did any spark of life on the nothingness of the earth’s earliest state for the earth was formless and void – literally. Darkness consumed the formless earth as well as its deep watery seas. After reading the verse 2 verses of Genesis, look at what the next verse, 3, and onward, “And God said” etc. etc. etc. and the cause of what he had said and the result, for instance, the Bible in the beginning said the earth was literally shrouded in Darkness, God simply spoke about light and there you have it or perhaps the living creatures that roam the earth, dwell in the depths of the sea and fly in the heavens.

It is very obvious and known by many that the Word by which God created all things in Genesis was His spoken Word. The Scriptures tell us that the Genesis creation was accomplished by means of God's SPOKEN Word, so I do not see how you missed that in John’s Introduction of the gospel.

As for the man named Jesus, in his pre-existence, he was with his Father during the Genesis Act of Creation, for God had made things through him, which is very clear in the Bible, in chapter 1 of Genesis, verse 26, God was clearly with His Son when they made man, molded in both likeness and image, the very reasons why the cross-references are clear (Prov 8:30, John 1:3, Colossians 1:16).

The same sense as a Father works through His Son to teach him how to craft and or teach, make him a better man, it is the same sense with God and his only-begotten Son, the very reason the Bible says God takes delight in His Son and that Jesus himself was with his Father, marveling at his works and what God the Father had done.

That being said, God's Spoken Word is in full display in regards to creation as seen in the very first chapter of the Bible (The Genesis Act of Creation).

On 7/7/2018 at 4:44 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

and categories of translations too. NWT or other translations have errors. Well, errors came not only because of our misunderstanding while reading, but because of what we reading too. 

You do realize I am not talking about Bible translation, the category of Bible readers I am referring to is individuals who read but do not accept fully of what the Bible says and or lacks to apply context. Now, if we are going to talk about Biblical errors vs. the NWT, I guess we can start with the hypocrisy shown by mainstream Christendom who attack Jehovah’s Witness, in addition to literally 99% of the attack being directed to Non-Trinitarians as well as Muslims to read the Bible, sure we can get into that for its been a decade since I have researched and spoke of Bible translations, inspired and uninspired verses, forgeries, etc. as well as why real Christians and even Muslims accept what the Oldest source says, which does not include Acts 8:37 and a dozen of other verses compared to the mainstream who accepts verses like Acts 8:37 and the other ones, the same people who attack others for removed Bible verses that have already been exposed to be 100% uninspired.

For this is a quote regarding the attack on JWs regarding Acts 7:59 and John 3:16:

It is disturbing that many Trinitarians have the nerve to whine and complain, and rant and rave, about the Jehovah's Witnesses doing this type of thing in their New World Translation and then turn right around and hypocritically approve of the very same type of thing in the KJV translation. If you have a KJV translation, the word "God" should be in italics (or brackets) and the KJV translators do inform their readers that words in italics (or brackets) were not present in the original Greek manuscripts. However, the Jehovah's Witnesses make their readers equally aware but for some reason Trinitarian apologists don't seem to think the Witnesses have been granted the same approval for such insertions as the KJV Trinitarians have been granted. It is blatantly misleading to add this word here, especially in view of the fact that many readers may overlook the italics convention, or do not even know about it, or blindly trust the translators to be giving them good information. The fact that this word is there in print, without any merit whatsoever, confuses and misleads the reader. It is an appalling example of adding to the Bible where it is obviously unwarranted and a device implemented only to promote a Trinitarian agenda. One truly wonders how anyone who approves of such things can suppose they are doing God a favor by distorting the very words he inspired and thereby misrepresent Him and so such things in His name.

End quote (mind you, this quote came from a man who is very neutral with JWs, moreover, he follows no denomination, just adheres to the Bible, but has common ground with those who actually has and or strives to be close to what is true)

But if you want to post a New World Translation errors that you claim, so be it, all I can say any claim you make is solely from a Trinitarian point of view and has been refuted by many, many, people over the years who know of the oldest source. You'll have to make another thread for that though.

On 7/7/2018 at 4:44 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

If Word is prehuman Jesus, as you agree he is, and as WT agree he is.... then He was already above all creations and above all angels. Do not understand "prior to his resurrection, God has made Jesus Lord and exalted him above the angels"? If he (Jesus) is Michael the archangel, then he was above angels too, because he is ARCHangel. Who was exalted above angels? Jesus human or Michael the prince?? 

Verses state: "Therefore God exalted Him to the highest place, and gave Him the name above all names, 10 that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth,…

Text said that in the NAME JESUS all must knee. NOT In the NAME MICHAEL. So if Michael came to earth to be Jesus and then Jesus go back in heaven to be Michael again, as WT teach, then where is LORD (Jesus) who was exalted by God and all angels and all chief princes must knee to him, even archangel Michael also must bow down or worship his KING . Because Jesus is KING (was born as King) and Michael is just Archangel. I think all is about Hierarchy.  

But as JTR wisely said,  "It's intellectually interesting ... in small doses ..."     :))))

Yes, if we are talking about the one who professes God’s Word, the flesh that is The Word, of course he had pre-existed, came to earth welcomed by some, hated by others and eventually killed, God took him out of the pangs of death on the 3rd day, exalted him as soon as he ascended then yes.

Indeed, Jesus was up there, but he could not do as much in the presence of his Father, like rebuking Satan when it came to Moses corpse, to what Satan had in store, that I do not want to know, but God’s Son did not want to overstep authority of which he did not have. Only later on, after being risen, God’s Son, now sitting at His right hand, the one given authority and power after being raised out of death, etc.

God did make Jesus Lord, the Bible says so Acts 2:36, God was the one who also made Jesus the Christ, the same Christ that many awaited for, in ancient times and now present day.

Let all the house of Israel therefore know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you crucified.”

Such has taken place in the period of Jesus’ death via crucifixion and onward to His resurrection, and what took place when Jesus ascended to heaven after his final meet up with his followers? God exalted him, placed Jesus at his right hand for Jesus, being His only-begotten, became man and represented the Father, spoke of him and what God’s Kingdom will bring for mankind in the future as seen in his ministry from Matthew-John, died for our sins and enabling the New Covenant for he had tasted death for us, and was actually dead until God himself brought the Christ back to life, glorified, appearing like a Spirit, mainly to his followers who ran into him later on, as well as Thomas who didn’t believe Jesus had risen, etc.

Yes, Jesus is indeed above the angels, but you forget what the term Archangel means. Also we should not also forget that there is but one who is the Leader of God’s Army, the same Army that battled with Satan and his demons.

For example, God’s chosen one is not just a King, but a mighty warrior, a leader, noblemen who takes charge. The Bible says that Michael and his angels battled with the dragon as seen in Revelation 12:7 as well as describing the same battle, but saying Jesus, seen in Revelation 19:14-16. Would be kind of silly to say and or think Satan had been battled twice, kicked out of Heaven twice when the Bible makes it clear the battle was only one time and the leader of the demons and the leader of God’s Army were the ones in conflict.

There is one army leader that God position to lead the angels into combat, eventually  H’Armageddon, the same one who cast out Satan from Heaven in a confrontation we only read about, but in reality must have been long and quite brutal.

No, Jesus was no longer human when he ascended into Heaven, and last I check flesh cannot enter the Spirit Realm that is Heaven that is absurd; you do not hear much about Michael until the action is revealed in Revelations.

As for the next response, that is fairly easy, because the one who has been anointed by God, the one who is the firstborn out of the dead and the first of the fruits – is the Messianic King, God’s chosen one.

Yes, it says Jesus, but you forget that God sent Gabriel to inform Mary to name the child Jesus, clearly in his pre-existence his name was not Jesus at all until he was in the womb of Mary. That passage also didn’t say Immanuel, and yet we can freely speak of this name in the same sense that we speak of Jesus, but not of Jesus’ pre-existing name, Michael.

 Technically it is seen this way, the Son of God, the only-begotten, was with His Father and clearly didn’t want to overstep his authority in the presence of his Father mainly with the whole Moses’ corpse situation. When sent to earth he was given the name Jesus (Yehoshua/Yeshua) as well as Immanuel (Emmanuel), as well as being called the Horn of Salvation. Jesus eventually became the Christ/Messiah, who was the Prophet of whom was spoken of the Old Testament, similarly, Jesus himself also made this known when he read the Scroll of Isaiah. Eventually he was accused and had been killed via crucifixion, risen on the 3rd day by God the Father, eventually ascending into heaven assuming his role by his Father, with his position and has been made Lord, exalted, given the name above every other name, as well as authority and power. With that, God will judge through his Son and resurrect people by a great multitude, as for the wicked, God’s chosen one will come to exact judgment with God’s Army, and he will be carrying a Sword, coming in the name of his Father. The list goes on but I this is just brief.

The only reason people cannot see Jesus is Michael is for one thing, Angel. But the hypocrisy is they say Jesus is a messenger who represents God (Shaliah Principle/Angelic Agency) aka Malak. In addition, they see clearly in scripture even Paul refers to Jesus as an Angel.

But many hold this view of Michael/Jesus, however, some seem to be closer to what the connection is vs those who do not, the most absurd of some belief is saying Michael is God, which is false.

If you think of it as such, what you say about him being born as a King, that is understandable, for it further proves the point of Jesus’ position when he pre-existed, as a human, when risen, returned to haven and onward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/8/2018 at 11:46 AM, Space Merchant said:

That is also true for Any man who had seen Jesus had seen the Father in terms of the things Jesus did. God is Life and Jesus fully expressed that Life in the words he spoke and the works that he had done. God is Truth and Jesus fully expressed that Truth by everything he had said and and in regards to his actions, etc

If we want to stick to Bible text and his own word, he said about self: "I am life, truth, way, bread, door, light, wine, water, rock ... " 

...so if translation are credible, he not only "expressed" those qualities, but all of that are his essence, his being, his self. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
58 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment

...so all angels with princes and chief princes and archangel are in fact - GODS :)) Ok, and what with that? Humans are gods, angels are gods. I now that verse you cited. If they all are gods that not explained Is angel Michael became Jesus the Human or not.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

you do not hear much about Michael until the action is revealed in Revelations.?

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him" ... not to Michael :) that is firm state from Revelation 1:1

If we believe that this book was written in the end of first century, and Jesus the Human was resurrected in the year 33, ...so why he still have the name Jesus if his heavenly name, original name and identity is Michael the Archangel??? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

Technically it is seen this way, the Son of God, the only-begotten, was with His Father and clearly didn’t want to overstep his authority in the presence of his Father mainly with the whole Moses’ corpse situation.

I do not think the same. If Jesus is Michael the Archangel and vice versa,  he have all authority over every single angel. Devil is also angel and his status, position is inferior in respect to same person identity, no matter if you named him Jesus or Michael, because you claim how both name are point out in fact the same person. 

Jesus the Human, rebuked satan few times while in desert and finally command devil to go away from him, so your arguments are weak. So, if Michael is the same person as Jesus, how come that he as Archangel in heaven can not done more than as Human on earth? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, BillyTheKid46 said:

 

 

Dear Srecko Sostar

 

 

 

How should, this be viewed by your understanding of the authority Christ has in Heaven and had on earth.

 

 

Revelation 12:7-12 New King James Version (NKJV)

 

 

Satan Thrown Out of Heaven

 

 

 

 

 

7 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels fought with the dragon; and the dragon and his angels fought, 8 but they [a]did not prevail, nor was a place found for them in heaven any longer. 9 So the great dragon was cast out, that serpent of old, called the Devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was cast to the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.

 

 

Dear Billy.

According to my present understanding i would say that Michael acting under command of his King Jesus. :)  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/9/2018 at 4:11 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

If we want to stick to Bible text and his own word, he said about self: "I am life, truth, way, bread, door, light, wine, water, rock ... " 

...so if translation are credible, he not only "expressed" those qualities, but all of that are his essence, his being, his self. 

We are sticking to the bible, Jesus is the life because by means of His Father, God gives life to the Son an through the Son, the very reason why Jesus is the Messianic King that God had chosen. He is the bread because by means of having faith in him we have eternal life itself, he is the door because by means of him we can reach God the Father, he is the wine because it represents his blood and what his blood enable upon his death and resurrection, the same implication with what the bread does, he is the water because His Father is the source of living water and only from him and through his Son, Jesus Christ, Chief Agent of life, can men receive eternal life, moreover, this is very explicit when you take into context of what Jesus had said to the Samaritan woman in John 4:7-15. Jesus is alluded to as the rock, Isaiah 8:14, and as this rock in regards to the houses of Israel who stumbled.

That may be the case, but as I have said before, look at the cross-references, than make the answer, perhaps understand as to why Jesus was called and or alluded to be such things.

That being said, in regards to this, it does not matter the translation because the information is there when context is applied.

On 7/9/2018 at 4:23 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

...so all angels with princes and chief princes and archangel are in fact - GODS :)) Ok, and what with that? Humans are gods, angels are gods. I now that verse you cited. If they all are gods that not explained Is angel Michael became Jesus the Human or not.   

god and or godlike ones, none of them are God no matter how you try to knock it. And the deal with that is because of a Law of which the Most High had made mention of, the same law that originated with him, even in the days of Moses, onward into the days of Jesus as well as Paul,even today this Law exists as much as the ten commandments exist.

I mentioned the verse because you made a claim in regards to John's Introductory which included the Genesis Act of Creation and onward. Jesus is indeed a god for if we are to remember correctly, Jesus was a born Jew out of a woman, born into the Law, everything he says in regards to what is written comes from the Law, this includes that men such as himself and others are called gods/godlike because God himself had spoken this into the Law itself.

That being said, you also stated Micheal is not a god, whether you believe Jesus is Micheal or not, any bene elohim of elohim is an elohim, in English any sons of God is a god/godlike. This includes Jesus, and if you believe him and Micheal are separate, it includes both, regardless of what you think of it, for that is the Law, and the Law is of God.

I believe I made the explanation, it is whether you choose to accept it or not. But it may be evident you may not believe that Jesus pre-existed and didn't dare to overstep authority in the presence of God way before even being baptized. For if the bible explains Jesus' pre-existence, if his name was not Micheal, you would have to explain who was really not trying to overstep authority in the presence of God for He was not named Jesus or Immanuel for he was not sent yet and or born in the flesh. In fact, all Spirit Beings, even Jesus at that time would not dare do such in front of God.

On 7/9/2018 at 4:35 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

"The Revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave unto him" ... not to Michael :) that is firm state from Revelation 1:1

If we believe that this book was written in the end of first century, and Jesus the Human was resurrected in the year 33, ...so why he still have the name Jesus if his heavenly name, original name and identity is Michael the Archangel??? 

And as to what point you are trying to prove with Revelations 1:1? This was in regards to the risen Christ himself.

That is simple, because even in those times Jesus himself had been given many names and titles, for we know Jesus is of God because he is the Son, he is the Word for he speaks the Word of God, hence even in Revelations he is called the Word of God, as well as the Lamb.

A question that can be addressed to you is if you believe the two are really separate, despite there being but one Archangel who is the head of God's Army, then which of the two was the mighty warrior of God who had defeated Satan and his demons, casting them out of Heaven?

In the book of Daniel, it speaks of the Great Prince and this same one was the one who took action on his own without the limitations of not overstepping authority in the presence of God.

As I said, Satan could not have been defeated twice by 2 armies when God has one Army of Angels that has a sole leader. Another factor would be that Satan could not have been cast out of Heaven twice, when this only took place one time regarding the Great War in Heaven, for God has appointed the greatest among his sons to lead such an army, for some it is evident that a King led such an army and this same army will be returning, led by the King, to enact God's justice against the wicked.

On 7/9/2018 at 4:47 PM, Srecko Sostar said:

I do not think the same. If Jesus is Michael the Archangel and vice versa,  he have all authority over every single angel. Devil is also angel and his status, position is inferior in respect to same person identity, no matter if you named him Jesus or Michael, because you claim how both name are point out in fact the same person. 

Jesus the Human, rebuked satan few times while in desert and finally command devil to go away from him, so your arguments are weak. So, if Michael is the same person as Jesus, how come that he as Archangel in heaven can not done more than as Human on earth? 

If you have forgotten, Jesus went into the wilderness right after baptism, authority and power by means of the Holy Spirit was on him and Jesus himself had the Father abiding in him, the very reason the temptation passage shows specific attempts Satan tried to get Jesus, as well as Satan's clear awareness that Jesus is God's Son, moreover, Jesus quoted the law in each temptation attempt Satan made and eventually afterwards, angels came to minister to Jesus, thus afterwards Jesus began the spreading of the good news gospel.

Moreover, Jesus himself also knew it was pointless to deal with the closed mind of the Devil, but he knew a day will come when God exalts him, he will enact God's judgement on Satan and dealing with him swiftly, regardless of him being in the presence of God the Father or not, but it is evident that God is with him always. Jude 9 is also parallel to Zechariah 3:2, to which even Trinitarians see this same verse that Jesus himself is speaking, yet they try not to brush over the connection to Jude 9.

As for Jesus' pre-existence, he as with all angels were in no position to overstep authority in the presence of God

  • 2 Peter 2:11 - whereas angels, though greater in might and power, do not pronounce a blasphemous judgment against them before the Lord.

That in itself should tell you as to why Jesus said what he said before he became a man, and what he said as a baptized man to Satan and eventually later, as a King of the Spiritual House, what he will do and how he will deal with Satan.

And no, I am not making the claims, simply using biblical facts and history of Christology based on such a belief, if it was indeed a claim, the information would be lacking.

Anyways in short

Pre-existence

Jesus was not exalted, he was not given authority and power and clearly was not sent yet, therefore, he was in no position to enact authority before the Father, as with the other Spirit Beings, which was the case in regards with the corpse of Moses.

As a human, Baptism

Jesus had the Father abiding in him, and at this point in time it was clear that the one who has come to represent the Father and speak His Word, was sent, even Jesus made the claim that such as been fulfilled when he spoke at the Synagogue of Nazareth when handed the Scroll of Isaiah as well as his encounter with the Samaritans. Jesus was able to rebuke Satan until Satan went away, for at this point it is clear that Jesus had the outpouring of the Holy Spirit for before he went into the wilderness, he had been baptized.

Resurrection

Jesus returned to heaven as sat at the right hand of God, was exalted above the other angels and returns to his position as well as given some evident promotion in terms of God's purpose and will. Jesus, leading the army of God will indeed return, for He, who is the Grt Prince will be coming with a Sword in hand to enact God's Justice on the day of God. Jesus was also the one responsible for casting out Satan and his Demons for He, the promised Seed, is the very one who is to deal with Satan and put an end to his evil once and for all, for that is what a King is and what he will do.

As for your other response: 

According to my present understanding i would say that M?ichael ac?ting und?er comm?a?nd of his Ki?ng Jesus.

There is nowhere in the Bible that Jesus is giving command to Michael. God had only one person deal with Satan and his demons in the Great War in Heaven, the answer should be obvious of who was really leading the angels.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

There is nowhere in the Bible that Jesus is giving command to Michael.

With same way of proving things, we can also conclude how nowhere in Bible said that Michael is The Son. That specific terminology are used only about Jesus in human life. With big S. All other creatures, heavenly and earthly are sons, with small letter s. If that mean something. Or big and small S,s are product of grammar that rises with time.

In WT literature, Bible (not any mentioned of Michael with this particular and most important information with this title, position, description) Only Jesus prehuman existence is described as he is "God's firstborn Son", and Lord Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God.   Again, is it possible to find in Bible some text with;  Michael the Son, Michael God's firstborn Son and  Michael only-begotten Son?  

Does this observation giving proof for your or mine conclusions. Or we both missing something to see. Everything is possible. At the end of the day, no one of us see things as they really are. :))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, AllenSmith34 said:

Then we all need to understand how the ancients thought not just in biblical terms but in every day, overall understanding of Gods. That’s the determination and correction Jesus was attempting to make, away from the Pharisees way of thinking.

Yeah, perhaps that would/can help. But, it is possible to have negative outcome too. Because if ancients have had wrong view and understanding about something, and we, today take such their standpoint and thoughts as relevant, truthful, but/or if we can't  differentiate -what and why- past time people saw wrongly or correctly, then it is hopeless situation again.    

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Or big and small S,s are product of grammar that rises with time.

If i noticed correctly ancient Greek and Latin alphabet was written mostly in Upper case (majuscule).

Wikipedia source said:

  • Greek majuscule (9th–3rd century BCE) in contrast to the Greek uncial script (3rd century BCE – 12th century CE) and the later Greek minuscule
  • Roman majuscule (7th century BCE – 4th century CE) in contrast to the Roman uncial (4th–8th century CE), Roman Half Uncial, and minuscule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

With same way of proving things, we can also conclude how nowhere in Bible said that Michael is The Son. That specific terminology are used only about Jesus in human life. With big S. All other creatures, heavenly and earthly are sons, with small letter s. If that mean something. Or big and small S,s are product of grammar that rises with time.

Unfortunately for you, it is not the same terminology as you claim.

I stated nowhere in the Bible your claim is proven, hence I quote you: According to my present understanding i would say that Michael acting under command of his King Jesus.

If Jesus commanded Michael it would be evident, granted that all angels are under Jesus' command, let alone Jesus' clear confrontation with Satan and his Demons. This is the same case with those claiming that Jesus is not a King because he never called himself one, however the verses that connection to this notion exist in the Bible, that is, if one chooses to accept what is there.

As for Jesus being Michael, there are clues and various parallel verses that proves this point, the very reason I addressed Jude 9 and Zechariah 3:2, oddly enough, you never made mention of the parallel verse.

Let's not forget the others

  • Revelations 12:7 to Revelations 19:14-16 which has to do with the Great War in Heaven.
  • Daniel 10:21 and Matthew 23:10 regarding The Leader of Israel
  • Daniel 12:1 to both Romans 8:34 and 1 Timothy 2:5 regarding an intervening for the people of God.
  • Jude 9, which connects both to Zechariah 3:2 as well as 1 Thessalonians 4:16
  • And lastly there is Galatians 4:14.

It would 100% a baseless terminology if there is no such parallel connections of Jesus being Michael, but unfortunately you have such connections for there is but one Prince who dealt with Satan and one who has the command of God's Army, and such a position of commanding this army is given to God's Chosen One. Your next problem would be Paul himself referring to Jesus as an angel, let alone the very information in regards to Jesus' pre-existence, and the obvious fact that he was sent (Shaliah).

However, the question addressed still stands and I quote: A question that can be addressed to you is if you believe the two are really separate, despite there being but one Archangel who is the head of God's Army, then which of the two was the mighty warrior of God who had defeated Satan and his demons, casting them out of Heaven?

y

12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

In WT literature, Bible (not any mentioned of Michael with this particular and most important information with this title, position, description) Only Jesus prehuman existence is described as he is "God's firstborn Son", and Lord Jesus Christ as the only-begotten Son of God.   Again, is it possible to find in Bible some text with;  Michael the Son, Michael God's firstborn Son and  Michael only-begotten Son?  

This does not only reside in the NWT Bible used by Jehovah's Witnesses, so that is incorrect. The focus is pre-existence, before Jesus became flesh, a man, or in this simple sense, being born as a child to Mary, thus becoming human, and given the name Jesus, as well as Immanuel. And yes, Jesus is described as God's firstborn and only-begotten, mainly if you take into account the verses that connect with Genesis 1:26, clearly the Son was not named Jesus and or Immanuel at the time, nor was it alluded to, but this same person, according to Paul, this angel, was the one who took action as seen in the Old Testament and alluded to in the New Testament as seen in Jude and Revelations.

As for the logic you are using on that final claim, that is kind of absurd. The name Michael means "Who Is like God?" (Quis ut Deus?)

Jesus himself is of God and is God's only-begotten, mainly if you take into account of all the things he has gone through, death, being raised, etc. He is like God because he is God's Son, God the Father abides and does the works in his representative and God takes delight in his Son greatly, for Jesus is his beloved one by by means of His Son, we are saved and have a shot at being forgiven for our sins, as well as having this Bread and Water that is eternal life, being able to go through the door in order to reach the Father, etc.

Now clearly if Jesus and Michael were indeed separate, than that would mean Michael is greater than Jesus for he is the people of Israel and the one who intervene and saved the people, that would disqualify Jesus' role as a Savior, let alone Jesus' position as a mighty warrior of God. That is not the case. Jesus is a warrior, he is a leader of the people, especially in regards to Israel, or in this case, The King of the Jews. He is the great one called The Word of God and leading God's Army he will not be coming to bring peace, but a Sword, and we know warriors carry swords and leading a vast army into battle, that is the role and position of Jesus, mainly in regards to him being exalted so it is no surprise that the Great Prince himself has the name of Michael, Jesus, as well as Immanuel, in addition to the titles and other names of which he is called. If we are to be honest, we should be aware of others having multiple names too, an example would be the Devil, making himself Satan, at the same time, he is referred to as Beelzebub a name that is applied to Satan who is also a prince, or ruler, but he is the leader of the fallen sons of God, demons, moreover, we know that in the Bible, religious leaders tend to blasphemously accused Jesus Christ of expelling demons by means of Beelzebub. So it is no surprise that Jesus having the name Michael or that of Immanuel, despite the many names and titles, it still equals to one person who is of God, the one person who is only-begotten, again, application of context speaks a lot of volume. therefore, this terminology having parallels and connections further proves this point, in addition to an Apostle referring to the Christ as an Angel and we know that there is but one Archangel who has command over all the others, hence God's Army.

12 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Does this observation giving proof for your or mine conclusions. Or we both missing something to see. Everything is possible. At the end of the day, no one of us see things as they really are. :))

These are not my conclusions, if they were, the response would have been different, I bring up the information of those who hold this belief centuries ago, mainly the fact that such ones before us believe the only God is the Father and that Jesus is the Son. The terminology of which you claim shows no information of Jesus giving various command to someone else, let alone, so and so being possibly greater than Jesus, as you believe, but the reality is the two are one in the same, mainly if you take into account the parallel verses and the very fact that there was but one who cast Satan out of Heaven, a question I addressed I still await a response from you in this regard.

As for me, I see this 100%, for us CSE members we have to fully grasp and understanding something clearly before accepting the conclusion of such Christology, in this case, Jesus being Michael, and we are aware that this belief was centuries ago and did not really start this late.

What what is indeed missing is your view of the actual prince who really cast out Satan, for we have 2 parallel verses above, of which of the greatest among God was the one to throw the Devil out, based on your view?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AllenSmith34 said:

Then we all need to understand how the ancients thought not just in biblical terms but in every day, overall understanding of Gods. That’s the determination and correction Jesus was attempting to make, away from the Pharisees way of thinking.

Indeed, however some people tend to take things out of context to spread something that is accursed. An example would be the belief in fiery torment when clearly God's view on the matter is seen in the Old Testament, or the belief that Jesus is God when Jesus claims to have a God, who is his Father.

The early Christians knew many things, but later on we have those who do not understand and twist things, therefore it is always a fight to bring forth the truth centuries later to present day.

Truth is like a spark of fire that never goes out, while the darkness itself is of those who teach something that is not of the Bible, eventually this fire will engulf the darkness and it has been growing day in and day out, even to the point that those not of the real Christian faith brings support to those who profess truth i.e. the people in the EU, to the West to Asia, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

Truth is like a spark of fire that never goes out,

hehe, this is some sort of irony. If "Truth" never goes out, then WT org would never changed previous or past "The Truths" -  doctrines, teachings, instructions, views.

Well, that obviously means how WT was never in position to have real truth, all truth, Gods truth,  because if they had the truth from first day in 19th century when CT Russell create this Company, all teachings would be the same today too. Looks like "spark of fire" are lost somewhere, somehow. 

 

44 minutes ago, Space Merchant said:

CSE member

is this what you mean with CSE?

CSE members are associated with some of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Space Merchant said:

However, the question addressed still stands and I quote: A question that can be addressed to you is if you believe the two are really separate, despite there being but one Archangel who is the head of God's Army, then which of the two was the mighty warrior of God who had defeated Satan and his demons, casting them out of Heaven?

Rev 12:5,6 

“And she gave birth to a son, a male, who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod. And her child was caught away to God and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and sixty days.” 

12:7 " Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back."

"son, shepherd, child" is that Lord Jesus Christ? just borne and in next moment he fight with devil, but not as the King of Kingdom but as  Michael (just Michael without any prefix archangel, angel, prince....)??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Now clearly if Jesus and Michael were indeed separate, than that would mean Michael is greater than Jesus for he is the people of Israel and the one who intervene and saved the people, that would disqualify Jesus' role as a Savior, let alone Jesus' position as a mighty warrior of God. That is not the case. Jesus is a warrior, he is a leader of the people, especially in regards to Israel, or in this case,

Why you think that Michael (one entity) intervention disqualify Jesus as Savior ???

That would be as you say how Jesus Christ intervention in saving people in Armageddon would disqualify JHVH role as Savior and make him greater than JHVH!!

That would be as you say how angels who went to Lot and his family to take them away (to save their life) from city of Sodom and Gomorrah disqualify JHVH role as Savior and made them greater than JHVH!  

That would be as you say how Moses, who was also sent, to free Israel nation from Egypt disqualify JHVH role  as Liberator and Lider  and make him greater than JHVH!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Why you think that Michael (one entity) intervention disqualify Jesus as Savior ???

I was not mere thought, it was an example, an example posed before of in several Jesus/Michael arguments that have come to pass, re-read what I have written. I do not see how you are making the claim I am making this as an actual statement when the statement was posed after the example.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

That would be as you say how Jesus Christ intervention in saving people in Armageddon would disqualify JHVH role as Savior and make him greater than JHVH!!

Where have I stated Yahweh is not the savior himself? I am pretty sure I brought up Romans 10 many many times here. And no. Jesus is not greater than his Father, to even suggest that is absurd. if someone was sent by means of Shaliah Principle, that alone should tell you who has more authority over than other for it's functions as divine agents, Jesus, being a Representative of God.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

That would be as you say how angels who went to Lot and his family to take them away (to save their life) from city of Sodom and Gomorrah disqualify JHVH role as Savior and made them greater than JHVH!  

Shaliah Principle, simple as that, Angels come from El Shaddai himself, to save Lot and his household of what is to come for God was coming to destroy the city. Again, no where it is mention that YHWH's role as a savior is disqualified, let alone him acting through and by means of His Son, who is deemed a savior also.

1 hour ago, Srecko Sostar said:

That would be as you say how Moses, who was also sent, to free Israel nation from Egypt disqualify JHVH role  as Liberator and Lider  and make him greater than JHVH!!

You technically repteat what you just said, but the princple of which the Law professes still applies.

The fact you are taking my example out of context does not hold any foundation for this example I brought up, as stated, as been said before, therefore I make a response to such again here, and I ended the example with a statement to a fact.

That being said, you still have not addressed the question in regards who among God's chosen ones cast Satan out of Heaven alongside his demons during the Great War, moreover, if we can say what you say about Michael not being able to rebuke Satan in the presence of his Father, let us say they are separate, why not make mention of Zechariah 3:2 as well when that is a verse in regards to pre-existence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

hehe, this is some sort of irony. If "Truth" never goes out, then WT org would never changed previous or past "The Truths" -  doctrines, teachings, instructions, views.

Well, that obviously means how WT was never in position to have real truth, all truth, Gods truth,  because if they had the truth from first day in 19th century when CT Russell create this Company, all teachings would be the same today too. Looks like "spark of fire" are lost somewhere, somehow. 

The irony is, we are talking about a belief that predates JWs by centuries upon centuries, and yet here we are, you are among the many who believe this is a doctrine not only professed by JWs, but originates with them.

No not all teachings are the same, JWs are Restorationist, no different from their Apostolic Age counterparts, unless you are willing to prove otherwise, which is neigh impossible, and the relevance will be based among those who attack the faith, which is evident in the past on this forum. 

The spark of which I speak of is the practices of Christians from the Apostolic Age to now, but it is no surprise the mainstream Christians such as yourself do not see anything in regards to those of the Apostolic Age, which is the case with Cos, Defender and Matthew, who have little to no knowledge of such. In the JWs case, as with others, they are far from mainstream Christendom and will do everything in their power to uphold the teachings of the early church, the very reasons why they as a group is marked as Restorationist. Even before Russell, Restorationism was that fire that is decreasing the likes of the mainstream church that teaches something entirely different from the truth, therefore, what I have sate is absolute unbreakable fact.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

is this what you mean with CSE?

CSE members are associated with some of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world.

Ha, no, not quite. Let me enlighten you, the CSE community, of which I posted before, is the Christian Stack Exchange Community, for all are welcome to it, especially those who take biblical theology and history very very seriously. Where in God's name did you find journalism information?

Pay us a visit, but best beware, we do not take kindly to falsehood and slander that is deemed problematic, you have to be absolutely neutral in what you have to say and what you do say.

2 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Rev 12:5,6 

“And she gave birth to a son, a male, who is to shepherd all the nations with an iron rod. And her child was caught away to God and to his throne. And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she has a place prepared by God, that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and sixty days.” 

12:7 " Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back."

"son, shepherd, child" is that Lord Jesus Christ? just borne and in next moment he fight with devil, but not as the King of Kingdom but as  Michael (just Michael without any prefix archangel, angel, prince....)??

You still have not address the question I have asked of you, so I will post it again:

if you believe the two are really separate, despite there being but one Archangel who is the head of God's Army, then which of the two was the mighty warrior of God who had defeated Satan and his demons, casting them out of Heaven?

There is only one who is of God who is in a position to have cast out the Devil from Heaven, who is that chosen one? Mind you, I have provided to you parallel verses already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If "Truth" never goes out, then WT org would never changed previous or past "The Truths" -  doctrines, teachings, instructions, views.

Don't be silly. "Truth" is not the sole province of any human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

why not make mention of Zechariah 3:2 as well when that is a verse in regards to pre-existence?

Angel of the Lord (or JHVH) 

Who is he? Angel of the Lord. 

If someone came to answer how he is Jesus or Michael or Word or Gabriel or .... i do not have nothing against.

I expressed my opinion about Michael and why i think how he can not be firstborn Word. Wrong or right my life not depend on what i thing about that issue. If God want to "punish" me because i have wrong conclusion about it (you believe i am wrong) then i am not lonely. :)) Why you think how i must have answer on "Bible" questions while in same time all those clever people in WT Company changed many "Bible" teachings and expecting of flock to believe flip-flop doctrines. 

If you belong to JW then you are perhaps aware of Known Fact about WT teaching on same matter, for many years  for WT bible scholars -  Michael the Archangel was Roman Catholic Pope. On what Bible verses, reasoning, facts, spirit guided Company (organization) founded such explanation? Obviously on  same that later make new explanation :))))

 

 

  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, AllenSmith34 said:

Keep, in mind, both are archangels “if” Lucifer was among the “first” created.

I have nothing against this conclusion. But this is first time, under this discussion, that someone mentioned how title archangel have not to be for just one person, it can be title/position for several separate entity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

Your next problem would be Paul himself referring to Jesus as an angel, let alone the very information in regards to Jesus' pre-existence, and the obvious fact that he was sent (Shaliah).

Question for thinking: Who where "angels" that visited Abraham and Lot?

in Genesis 18:1-3 Abraham addressed the three visitors as ‘Jehovah’. The two who left to visit Sodom, Lot called them ‘Jehovah’ (19:18), yet the one who remained, Abraham continued to address Him as ‘Jehovah’ (18:22,26,27,30,31,32,33)

You have 3 angels. What was their names, rank, title, entity. Was one of them Michael great prince or Gabriel or some other highly positioned archangel, cherub, seraphs, angel messenger, angel guardian, angel investigator, angel warrior, angel punisher  ... and so on?     

-things are not where we would like them to be
-things are not where we think they should be
-things are not always where they should be

:))

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, AllenSmith34 said:

Now according to history? There are 7 archangels, 1 of which you referenced, Gabriel. But according to the zodiac, there are 12, 1 for each sign.

Actually, there are 15 archangels, according to how many chassis styles Ford Motor Company has.

Gimme a break .... equating how many archangels there are according to the 12 signs of the zodiac ... which are artificial constructs that vary from culture to culture?

Tradition says that no matter which way Mickey Mouse turns his head, the ears always face  the viewer.

If the Bible does not say... everything else is conjecture .....

... ONLY.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Angel of the Lord (or JHVH) 

Who is he? Angel of the Lord. 

The very reason I brought up the verse that is cr'd with Jude 9. Clearly it isn't Yahweh because we clearly see the one speaking is speaking of YHWH to rebuke so and so. the malak of elohim is the one speaking and it is no surprise of the cross-references of which this verse is connected to.

14 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If someone came to answer how he is Jesus or Michael or Word or Gabriel or .... i do not have nothing against.

But if one has a view of one verse, yet have a different view of another verse, that alone speaks volume. For in this sense, if we are to say one thing about Jude 9, yet say and or view Zechariah 3:2 vastly different than the first verse, then what of it, then?

These 2 are parallel verses, and the fact we spoken about Jesus/Michael having not being able to overstep authority in the presence of God the Father, regardless if you think of the both of them as the same or not, the verses speak for themselves. now if we go even deeper than that, aside from Jude 9, this verse somewhat connects with Mark 9:25 also (Jude 23, Isaiah 7:4, Amos 4:11, Zechariah 2:12 if we're really feeling it today).

And no, Gabriel is indeed an Angel of the Lord as well, but the verses in question points to a specific one, not Gabriel. It is fact that in the Greek New Testament, the term Angel of the Lord is used several times, however, only once it is used to identified with Gabriel, of which is seen in Luke 1:11–19, so in short, An angel of the Lord (An Angel of Yahweh) who is mentioned in is identified as Gabriel. Gabriel has made some appearances.

The first time was in regards to Prophet Daniel near Ulai River on the 3rd year of Belshazzar's rule (kingship), and when he appeared, Gabriel was up to task to explain Daniel's visions (Daniel 8:15–26) as well as the 1st year of Darius, the Mede, to deliver the prophecy regarding the seventy weeks (Daniel 9:1, 21–27). And finally, we have his appearance to the priest, Zechariah, the Father of John, the Husband of Elizabeth, and he himself was sent to deliver good news, 2 in fact. The first news being that his aging wife Elizabeth will have a son, the one named John (the Baptizer/Baptist), as seen in Luke 1:11-20. Afterwards, Gabriel carried out the second good news that he was tasked to delivery, and this message was direct to young Mary, the betrothed virgin girl to Joseph as seen in Luke 1:26-38.

Anyways, Gabriel is indeed a high ranking angel within the Spiritual court in Heaven, standing before God the Father.

Gabriel has been said to be An Archangel himself, however, the Book of Enoch (Biblical Apocrypha) is not Biblical Canon and the information of such is deemed uninspired, for if we are to take the Book of Enoch seriously, we always accept that Looney Toon-ish nature of the Book of Thomas, therefore, since such is not canon, Gabriel, An Angel of the Lord, is not an Archangel, so there is only one, hence the very meaning of what Archangel represents.

It's not about being against something or not, just that the information is there, in context and understood.

14 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

I expressed my opinion about Michael and why i think how he can not be firstborn Word. Wrong or right my life not depend on what i thing about that issue. If God want to "punish" me because i have wrong conclusion about it (you believe i am wrong) then i am not lonely. :)) Why you think how i must have answer on "Bible" questions while in same time all those clever people in WT Company changed many "Bible" teachings and expecting of flock to believe flip-flop doctrines. 

You can speak of the Watchtower all you want, the reality is, the belief that Jesus is Michael has been around before the Watchtower even existed, we are talking Apostolic Age levels is old here. And no, you have no reason to think that, God will punish those who are clearly Anti-Christ and against him, those against his laws for some of God's laws today's folk consider took brutal and or burdensome to even apply to the church, this also goes for what Jesus Christ himself entrusted the Church with in regards to maintaining the Church and being vigilant of anything accursed that might cause a stir among the people, that is the very same thing of which our 1st century brothers and sisters had done and in today's day and age, only a FEW are doing this or at least close to doing this and the same ones that are doing this are the ones who mainstream Christians do not like, to add more salt to injury, you have those in Islam who made this claim evident of those who do such things than you have those in the Agnostic Corner who is strict about those not following the early church.

And as to what teachings you are saying they are changing and or flip flopping? As I said Jehovah's Witnesses are Restorationist Christians. Restorationist are known to apply Bible teachings over time and or make changes and adjustments to a Christian based lifestyle.

Fact: Restorationism  (also called Christian Primitivism) is the belief that Christianity has been or should be restored along the lines of what is known about the Apostolic Early Church (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostolic_Age), which Restorationists see as the search for a more pure and more ancient form of the religion. Fundamentally, this vision seeks to correct faults or deficiencies (in the church) by appealing to the primitive church as a normative model.

So in short, Jehovah's Witnesses of the Watchtower are hardcore Restorationist, and do not equal or try to be like mainstream Christianity, the form of Christianity that came about in and or around the 4th century and onward to this day whereas the practice of real Christianity was professed from the 1st century and onward until the 4th century, and as time progresses real Christianity is often batting heads with the New Christianity, in a simple sense the two Christian camps are obvious: Non-Trinitarianism and Trinitarianism. That being said, the issue of Jesus being Michael is not something of Jehovah's Witnesses' design, but rather, our early church brothers and sisters, so if that is a problem, of which you see, you will have to take it up with the practices of the ancient ones, for bringing up Watchtower will not help your resolve.

Also the question I asked was a rather simple one, there is no need to evade it even though the answer is obvious.

14 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

If you belong to JW then you are perhaps aware of Known Fact about WT teaching on same matter, for many years  for WT bible scholars -  Michael the Archangel was Roman Catholic Pope. On what Bible verses, reasoning, facts, spirit guided Company (organization) founded such explanation? Obviously on  same that later make new explanation :))))

Like I said, the belief did not originate with the Jehovah's Witnesses, even in their Bible Student days, it never began with them. You only think it began with them because every mainstream New Ager Christian will make the claim that JWs came up with this when the reality is the hypocrisy shows when the truth of the matter is the belief of Jesus being Michael was around long before any Witnesses formed as a religious group, perhaps beyond that, thus, predating them.

There are many people who are not even Jehovah's Witnesses that hold this belief, but it is absurd to say they are JWs for believing Jesus is Michael. Such ones often bring up the whole Jude 9 verse, yet shy away from Zechariah 3:2 for the very reason such cannot be refuted.

The difference here is when one studies the Christology of Christendom, they come to the discover of the belief by research and study, but those who simply think otherwise, clearly do not make acknowledgment to this information, thus remaining one track minded, this is case, you have not utter a single word on the Apostolic Age view on Jesus being Michael, but rather, you bring up Watchtower/JW constantly in regards to this belief.

So what of it then if you travel to somewhere in Thailand or perhaps Africa where there are those who believe that Jesus is indeed Michael, for they see Jesus as not just a Great Prince, but a Mighty Warrior chosen by God? Are you to make the claim they are Jehovah's Witnesses when clearly they are not? This is why understanding such beliefs is important instead of holding on to the ideas and views of disgruntled ones, moreover, even Apostle Paul himself made the claim of Jesus being an Angel, yet we do not see people going to war about it at all.

And as to what explanation you are conveying? We already seen the viewpoint of Jude 9 but never of the cross-reference to the parallel verse.

7 hours ago, Srecko Sostar said:

Question for thinking: Who where "angels" that visited Abraham and Lot?

in Genesis 18:1-3 Abraham addressed the three visitors as ‘Jehovah’. The two who left to visit Sodom, Lot called them ‘Jehovah’ (19:18), yet the one who remained, Abraham continued to address Him as ‘Jehovah’ (18:22,26,27,30,31,32,33)

You have 3 angels. What was their names, rank, title, entity. Was one of them Michael great prince or Gabriel or some other highly positioned archangel, cherub, seraphs, angel messenger, angel guardian, angel investigator, angel warrior, angel punisher  ... and so on?     

-things are not where we would like them to be
-things are not where we think they should be
-things are not always where they should be

:))

This one is simple:

Shaliach Principle. I cannot tell you how many times over 2 decades this has been brought up.

One fact about Shaliach Principle regarding God: Yahweh Himself speaking and that is because Yahweh Himself IS in fact speaking. He is speaking through an intermediary, through one of His messengers as His representative. This principle of agency (shaliach) is very common in the Scriptures especially with respect to Yahweh's messengers/angels.

Note:  It is also known as The Law of Agency

Moreover, these 2 men (enosh) were 3 angels of God, Angels of the Lord, they were Sent by God Yahweh. Also you may want to look into the context and cross-references on this one because you are very close to defeating your own words.

Let's not forget the hint we have of such ones when Moses was speaking to God.

That being said, I have vast information of this passage and perhaps I may post it under Bible Discussion soon once I am done with John 1:1.

Moreover, what is interesting is that now we are in the area of the mention of The Promised Abrahamic Seed, the one who is of David's Throne who is the same person to defeat Satan and His demons, for this one, was of God and exacts Judgement in God's name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, AllenSmith34 said:

That’s a reasonable assumption since no one really mentions the book of Enoch and the book of Tobit. But in the hierarchy, there are several archangels by which, Michael would still be the first given his status of authority.

Now according to history? There are 7 archangels, 1 of which you referenced, Gabriel. But according to the zodiac, there are 12, 1 for each sign. Ironically, Michael is not among them while Gabriel and Rafael are. Why? Would this be significant to theology? In the book of Apocalypse, in chapter 7, it mentions 4 angels standing at the 4 corners of God. Who are these angels? Folklore suggests it is Michael, Gabriel, Rafael, and Uriel. But, as a theologian? Who can you compare within the book of Mark Chapter 16 as sitting in the right-hand of God? Once again we have an inference between Jesus and Michael.

Now for those that don’t believe in God? These 4 angels were transformed to the 4 elements of nature. Earth, Wind, Fire, and Water. I mentioned the elements earlier.

Yeah, in general, no one really mentions anything that is not Biblical Cannon and or uninspired and only other Archangels are mention in these uninspired text, with the inclusion of Michael, in these uninspired canons, Gabriel is also considered to be an Archangel. However, in full Biblical Canon, inspired text, the only Archangel is Michael, pretty much the head honcho of God's Army, otherwise known as The Great Prince.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@James Thomas Rook Jr. Or that, but as for the Mickey Mouse remark, I thought I was the only one who notice that, thus going mad. Other than that, the Bible makes connections and alluding of things even if not direct, example, the fact that Jesus is alluded to being a King despite not saying it, Jesus being the only-begotten one who was sent, him being the Seed as well as the prophet and what he will do, etc.

All I can say is thank God that uninspired Bible Canons didn't make it into the Bible, however we did get the Textus Receptus/Comma Johanneum nonsense, but over time we ironed that mess out. Now if Bible Canon like Enoch was in the Bible, that alone would cause problems, oh and the book of Thomas, what is written in there is like a Fan-Fic view of Jesus' resurrection, Fan-Fic as in, it sounds like a young child having a "Superhero" based view of risen Jesus. If you still do not see it, in brief: it speaks of Jesus being pale, exiting his tomb and growing into the size of a giant, with the wooden device of which Jesus was crucified with spoke and sang in praise of Jesus as it trails behind him - see how silly that sounds? Now imagine if that was in the Bible, the atheists will have a field-day with that one as they did with the Unicorn verses without understanding that it was a one horned rhino.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites