by Lady Liberty 72 Replies latest watchtower bible
Dear RR,
I found this Greek Interlinear Bible on line...looking at John 1:1 can you show me what you were refering to regarding the difference between the theos's? I understand what you were saying but I am not sure I see what you were refering to here. See http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/NTpdf/joh1.pdf
Thank you so much,
Sincerely,
Lady Liberty
dear dreamerdreaming,,,
I thought that a priest stood...(at the altar)...and a king sat...(on the throne)...
love michelle
There are five verses which mention Michael the archangel in the Holy Bible and the New World Translation, and none of these verses declare him to be Jesus. In Daniel 10:13 Michael is referred to as "one of the foremost princes". However, in Revelation 19:16, Jesus is referred to as "King of kings". Is a King not above a Prince? Jude 9 mentions that an archangel dare not bring accusation against the Devil. However, as we all know Jesus indeed rebuked the Devil when he said "Go away, Satan!" (Matt.4:10) How could Jesus rebuke the Devil but Michael could not? These scriptures alone are transparent evidence that Jesus is not Michael the archangel, he is indeed superior to the angels, and angels do not worship other angels, they worship God. (Hebrews 1:6) The only reason the Watchtower Society teaches this is to lessen the importance of Christ and his true deity.
Dear Deconbluez...
GOOD POINTS! Thank you!!
Sincerely,
Lady Liberty
One very common interpretive trick to make sense of the older "gods" from older Israelite polytheism in the new belief setting of Jewish monotheism was to construe them as "angels". This often shows in textual tradition, especially in the Greek Bible (Septuagint). One classic example is Deuteronomy 32:8, where an original bene 'el ("sons of El") or bene 'elim ("sons of gods") was "corrected" as "sons of Israel" in the Hebrew (proto-)masoretic tradition and as "angels of God" in the Septuagint.
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/10/66342/1.ashx
in hebrew it says that the ELOHIM created the heavens and the earth
Actually Genesis 1:1, by using a singular verbal form, rules out a plural reading -- the priestly text as it stands, and probably from the very beginning (!), implies a monotheistic reading -- although polytheistic reminiscences do show later, e.g. v. 26ff.
Hi LL,
Have you ever read the book of Enoch? In this book, Michael is one of seven archangels alongside others like Gabriel. Though the book is not a part of the bible canon, Jude quotes it in verses 14 and 15 of his book. For Jude to quote from it, would suggest that he saw it as inspired, and would probably then, have just seen Michael as one of seven archangels as described in Enoch, and not the Messiah, when he referred to Michael in his book. Many scholars also believe Daniel and Revelation were partly influenced by the book of Enoch. That would explain why Daniel only called Michael 'One of the foremost princes' i.e. he was one of seven.
Hebrews 1 is also dedicated to the idea that Jesus is above any angel.
Dear Narkissos,
WOW!! My head is spinning..I think this is the reason I have taken so long to really dig deep on this topic. It is so confusing because we are dealing with a language that I know nothing about. No wonder the Society is discouraging their members from studying Greek!!
Sincerely,
Lady Liberty
Zico....Indeed, the author of Jude in fact explicitly quotes 1 Enoch as prophecy, so it is quite clear that he regarded it as inspired. The mention of Michael in Jude has him involved in the burial of Moses, which is exactly along the lines of the function of Michael in the Jewish pseudepigrapha, which involves him in the burial of the patriarchs (see the Testament of Abraham, for instance), and it is well known that Jude here is dependent on the Assumption of Moses, as the early church fathers noted. And, in fact, Michael is mentioned in the Ascension of Isaiah as one of the angels who accompanied Jesus during his resurrection: "Michael, the chief of the holy angels, will open his grave on the third day and the Beloved, sitting on [his] shoulders, will come forth and send out his twelve disciples" (3:16-17). Even in Revelation, which has canonical status, Michael and Jesus (as the Messiah child) are distinguished from each other. The Society circumvents this by claiming that the child represents not Jesus (despite the description of the child as ruling the world with an iron scepter, cf. Psalm 2:9 and especially Revelation 19:15 which identifies Jesus as the one ruling with an iron scepter) but the kingdom itself.
The Society's speculations are at variance with what Christians and Jews actually believed at the time. It is a doctrine constructed from statements in the Bible wrest from their original wider intellectual context.
I agree with Nark.
It's all theological smoke and mirrors.
This is CONFUSING!! But thank you to everyone who has replied!! I certainly have ALOT of homework to do!!
Sincerely,
Lady Liberty
