Archangel Michael ... (page 2)

PrimateDave

If anyone noticed, the Bible Teach book (2005) is for so-called Bible studies, and therefore uses more subtle language to ease potential converts, some who may have been Trinitarians, into the idea that Michael, an angel, is Jesus in heaven.

The Watchtower (2006) minces no words that the official doctrine is that Michael is Jesus in heaven. I see no effort underway by the org to distance themselves from this doctrine, and why would they?

Dave

Pahpa

It is the dogmatic statements of the Watchtower that is so disturbing. If the Watchtower pointed out that Jesus comes with "with the voice of an archangel" as indicated in 2 Thess. 4:16 and that an "archangel" means chief angel one could accept these statements as truth. But it is when the Watchtower steps beyond these statements to conclude that "Jesus is the archangel, Michael" that it oversteps its authority and "goes beyond what is written."

jelcat8224

choosing life: I Thess. 3:16 states The Lord called With "an" archangel's voice. If there is only one, then why doesn't it say "the" archangel's voice?

Pahpa: But it is when the Watchtower steps beyond these statements to conclude that "Jesus is the archangel, Michael" that it oversteps its authority and "goes beyond what is written."

I agree with both of you! They just like to put things together wether they belong together or not!

PrimateDave: I see no effort underway by the org to distance themselves from this doctrine, and why would they?

I used to be in contact with woman who is a very outspoken JW 'apostate'. She is one of the people who started me on this road of leaving the org. She claimed to have inside contact(s) within the org. Not sure if it was true but she did inform me of some of the WT moves before they happened. I vaguely remember her mentioning this teaching of the Jesus/Michael thing, saying that she anticipated a move away from this teaching. I don't remember why. (I have since lost contact with her) And for the life of me I can't figure out why they would either. It doesn't really seem to be a teaching that they would need to change. Nevertheless, I have a gut feeling. I just can't seem to put my finger on it!

Leolaia

Of course, archangel Michael was only one of several archangels in apocalyptic Jewish tradition, especially in 1 Enoch which is quoted verbatim in Jude (which also cites a passage in the Testament of Moses in v. 9 that refers to "the archangel Michael"). Other archangels included Raphael, Gabriel, Uriel, Sariel, Jeremial/Remiel, Raguel, Zerachiel in other lists. Gabriel elsewhere occurs with Michael in Hebrew Daniel (and appears in the infancy narrative of Luke), and Raphael appears prominently in Tobit. Each of the two NT uses of the term "archangel" is clearly dependent on the apocalyptic tradition (1 Thessalonians 4:16, Jude 9). The Society's argument is largely based on the portrayal of Michael in Daniel, which views him less in terms of an archangel (in fact, the term does not appear in this book), and more in terms of a tutelary deity, talking over the tutelary role of Yahweh in earlier Yahwism, and on the basis of the parallel between Michael in the Hebrew portions of Daniel and the "one like a son of man" in the Aramaic portions of Daniel (i.e. ch. 7, which has a separate origin than the Hebrew portions of the book). The Society erroneously argues that the etymology of the term "archangel" must imply a single archangel (this is false in light of the actual usage of the term), it overinterprets 1 Thessalonians 4:16 as implying that Jesus is an archangel, and it ignores instances where Michael and Jesus occur in the same narrative as separate individuals (i.e. Revelation 12, which is conveniently explained away by Rutherford's 1914 doctrine; there is another instance in Ascension of Isaiah 3:16-17, in which Michael is one of the angels that leads Jesus out of his tomb).

The Society has not changed this teaching because there is no need to. There is no controversy or pressing need as there was for the other recent 1914 Generation, sealing of the anointed, etc. changes.

heathen

IMO , jesus plays many roles and many are listed in various scripture such as Isaiah 9:6 . I think the conclusive evidence that he is the arch angel Michael is in Daniel 12 where he stands up and the dead are resurrected , sounds alot like jesus to me then there is also in Revelation where arch angel Michael is waring with the dragon and throws it out of heaven , that is the fullfillment of the seed that bruises the serpent in the head from genesis. Genesis 3:15 Revs 12:7-10

The Dragon

Does it matter? What they are teaching...and what they can PROVE or KNOW for certain are two completely different things anyway.

Only God has the correct answer to the question...all we have are guesses...and if he revealed the correct one to someone...how would we even know for sure it was not just a personal guess presented as a truth or fact like all the rest?

THAT is the whole problem with religion in general....unless you want to believe the person you choose to follow was given divine knowledge and answers...it is all guesses..unless you have faith in them and the fact that God choose them to be your leader(s).

Tuesday

Hmmm, that might be a good arguing point. Doesn't it say in Jude 9 that Michael the Archangel said "My Jehovah rebuke you" because he couldn't, but while in the desert being tempted Jesus commanded Satan to leave him and he did. So Michael the archangel didn't have the power to command Satan, but Jesus did. Wierd to me, it doesn't seem like they're the same person, but whatever.

heathen

Yah but you could easily argue that as jesus he was given the authority to do what he did at that time .He was even given authority to forgive sins and expel demons . I notice he didn't have such authority until baptized at the jordan by John the baptist.

Sasha

Funny, how they used to push that hard many years ago and now when you mention it to them, they kinda shy away from it, as other teachings they have taught through the years that NOW have changed completely!

RubaDub

Yes, that is true.

But among most angels, he prefers to be called Mike.

Rub a Dub

Archangel Michael ...

Share this