Jump to content
The World News Media


Diakonos

Recommended Posts

  • Member
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 :))))

 

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 7.6k
  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

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 t

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 ove

"in Emmanuel name, amen" :)))))))))

  • Member
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. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
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

:))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

@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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
2 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

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.

Did you have a reference for this outside of making a connection between Revelation 12 and 1 Thess 4?

I have wondered if there is a first century reference about the connection between Zechariah 3:2 and Jude 9:

  • (Zechariah 3:1, 2) And he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of Jehovah, and Satan was standing at his right hand to resist him. 2 Then the angel of Jehovah said to Satan: “May Jehovah rebuke you, O Satan, yes, may Jehovah, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you!
  • (Jude 9) But when Miʹcha·el the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.”

Of course, where the NWT uses "the angel of Jehovah said to Satan" the KJV and a great majority of translations merely say: " And the LORD [Jehovah] said unto Satan, The LORD [Jehovah] rebuke thee, O Satan; even the LORD that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?

The NWT adds the word "the angel" to keep it from saying" Jehovah said to Satan, May Jehovah rebuke you." There is contextual support for this interpretation in the context (both verse 1 and verse 3) although there is no Hebrew textual or Hebrew manuscript support for the addition. (The NWT is not the only translation to make this addition.)

Although Jude was evidently quoting from a portion of the book known as the Assumption of Moses. Although most of the book is missing, it fits the context from parts that still exist today. According to this link, "Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Didymus of Alexandra all claimed that Jude is referring to the Assumption of Moses."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
9 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

the Book of Enoch (Biblical Apocrypha) is not Biblical Canon and the information of such is deemed uninspired

Please tell me who and when was collected manuscripts and decide that they are inspired or uninspired? Was that one person or more? Was that collector/s inspired while choosing text, letters, manuscripts, copies of manuscripts? 

If first original text has been inspired because original writer was inspired on what to write, was people who made copies and copies of copies also inspired and guided by same spirit who has been behind first writer/writing?  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
16 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

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 Zech?ariah ?3:2? ??vastly different than the first verse, then what of it, then?

But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not himself dare to condemn him for slander but said, “The Lord rebuke you!”[a]

2 The Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?”

Sorry, but my intellectual, spiritual and other qualifications can not see and are not able to explain what in this two verses is same or similar or different or opposite to each other in relation to subjects; Michael, Lord 1 and Lord 2 and Lord 3 and Lord 4. 

:)   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
12 hours ago, AllenSmith34 said:

However, the reference to "Prince", who can we compare that with if not Jesus in Isaiah 9:6

Hi.

It just came to me when i see word "compare" in sentence you wrote. Maybe problems arise when we human want "to compare" this with that, one verse with another, this person with other person. Nothing must be wrong with "comparing", but you know, "to compare" can cause many problems. Guess you understand how such activity (comparing) can be bad. Just try to expand picture. :)) 

Some quotes:

 Don't compare yourself with others. Just look at your own work ------------ Not that we dare to classify or compare ourselves with some of those ------------When we compare ourselves with others we are not walking by faith-------That means we will not compare ourselves with each other as if one of us were better and another worse---------------“To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?” says the Holy One.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
17 hours ago, Space Merchant said:

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.

If i understand this "principle" that means something like this: My college Mark, from work place (or he must not be my college from work, he can be from another Company inc.), was sent by Principle of the school and tell me; "Srecko, Mr. Principle said that you have to go to post office and send this letter. My respond (by Shaliach Principle) to Mark is; "Very well Sir Principle i do as you said to me Sir Principle" :))))

Link to comment
Share on other sites





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.