I need some good sriptures & reasoning to refute Jesus = Michael Archangel (page 15)

PSacramento

Reniaa,

That very some mode of reasoning is what led people to develop the doctrine of the Trinity.

Well done !

Reniaa, you forgot point 6, which is that 'your cult leaders tell you so.' It's really the only point that matters. You will believe that Jesus is Michael until the WTS says that he is not, at which point you will immediately abandon your current belief and start defending the notion that Jesus is NOT Michael. This is why your religion is a cult.

I have no desire to debate you. You have showed in the past that you care nothing about truth, only about defending your cult masters in the face of their lies and generally trying to ruin decent peoples' days. I'm sorry but I just don't have the time for running around in circles with someone who simply wants to run around in circles because, presumably, she has nothing else going on in her life.

However I will say lol @ you calling the CEV an "interestingly weird translation". That's you "poisoning the well". (Google it.) Again you show that you care nothing about truth, only defending and promoting your pathetic little cult.

The CEV renders the verse as a statement while other translations (even your "translation", the nwt) render it as a rhetorical question (again, google it). It's patently obvious from the context that the verses are asking rhetorical questions and not even your cult masters would say otherwise. Read the verses in context (from the NIV):

1 In the past God spoke to our forefathers through the prophets at many times and in various ways, 2 but in these last days he has spoken to us by his Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the universe. 3 The Son is the radiance of God's glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven. 4 So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.
5 For to which of the angels did God ever say,
"You are my Son;
today I have become your Father"? Or again,
"I will be his Father,
and he will be my Son"? 6 And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says,
"Let all God's angels worship him." 7 In speaking of the angels he says,
"He makes his angels winds,
his servants flames of fire." 8 But about the Son he says,
"Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever,
and righteousness will be the scepter of your kingdom.
9 You have loved righteousness and hated wickedness;
therefore God, your God, has set you above your companions
by anointing you with the oil of joy." 10 He also says,
"In the beginning, O Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
and the heavens are the work of your hands.
11 They will perish, but you remain;
they will all wear out like a garment.
12 You will roll them up like a robe;
like a garment they will be changed.
But you remain the same,
and your years will never end." 13 To which of the angels did God ever say,
"Sit at my right hand
until I make your enemies
a footstool for your feet"? 14 Are not all angels ministering spirits sent to serve those who will inherit salvation?

PSacramento

Every single bible commentary I have read in regards to Hebrews 1 cleary states that they are passages in which the writer is REFUTING the belief that Jesus was simple another angel.

During that time there were many false teachings circulating about Jesus, the angel one was just one of them.

Trevor Scott

: I am "not" one of Jehovah's Witnesses as in a part of the W.T.S.

Uh-huh. Right. Just some random dude who devotes countless hours of his life to arguing in favor of WT doctrine and policy with former members.

If it walks like a dub, and it talks like a dub, .......

Trevor Scott

PSacramento: Yes, absolutely true. The entire first chapter is devoted to debunking the idea that Jesus is an angel. In that context, the questions in verses 5 and 13 are asked. These questions only make sense as rhetorical questions, which is why some translations render the verses as statements. (As I mentioned to Reniaa, not even the WTS would say that the questions in vs 5 and 13 are not rhetorical.)

Therefore, it is logically impossible for Jesus to be an angel.

All the best,

Trevor.

reniaa

Hi trevor

You used a version that isn't true to the original question so it loses a lot just for that.

but then michael isn't simply an angel he's the ONLY Archangel mentioned in the bible there is a difference but verse 9 refutes your position anyway. that Jesus was once the same as his COMPANIONS/angels is clear and it is Jehovah that has raised him above them giving him a more excellent name and anointing him.

your views only work if you ignore verse 9.

Reniaa

Narkissos

Reniaa:

One question (WT style): according to Hebrews 1--2, when was the Son made superior to angels?

(You may wish to read the text again before answering.)

Trevor Scott

: You used a version that isn't true to the original question so it loses a lot just for that.

Lol. Coming from someone who recommends the NWT, that really is funny.

Are you aware that your cult leaders quote from the CEV regularly?

You have a problem with the NIV as well? I quoted it verbatim in my last post.

Verse 9 does not refute my position. How ridiculous. This is a blatant red herring. "Look elsewhere everybody!"

As your cult leaders and everyone with half a brain accept, verse 5 and 13 are RHETORICAL questions. In other words, they are STATEMENTS worded in the form of a question.

That being the case, according to verses 5 and 13, God never said 'X' to *ANY* angel, but of course we know He *DID* say 'X' to Jesus. Ergo, Jesus cannot be an angel.

If you accept scripture, then Jesus CANNOT be an angel. Period. There is nothing to debate. Of course, you are a Jehovah's Witness and therefore you do not believe the Bible; you believe the Watchtower Society. So I'm sure you're still game...

Trevor.

sacolton

You can argue for years to a Jehovah's Witness on logical points, but they will dance around it.

It takes just a fraction of a second for them to change their minds if it comes from their Governing Body - without ANY research by them.

For example, there is a book and the cover of this book is blue. The JW insists the cover is red because the Governing Body told them.

You argue back and forth and show evidence and color spectrums and palettes to show the cover is, in fact, blue and they will reject it.

One day, the Governing Body announces "new light" that after much prayer, Jehovah has revealed to them that the cover is, in fact, blue.

In that split second, every Jehovah's Witness is convienced that the cover is blue afterall.

Go figure.

reniaa

hi nark

i'll answer yours if you can tell me how Jesus can empty himself and still remain 100% God lol.

only kidding ^^

hebrews is not my strongest subject but I do know when it says God appointed Jesus, Jesus inherited a name to make him superior to the angels, that jesus became superior, that he was annointed from among his companions aka angels. That Jesus is unique and certainly by Hebrews he is the only spirit being to have been a man, he is also the only begotten from God. Hebrews is pointing out how unique Jesus has become not that he wasn't an angel quite the contrary it's only that his actions and God has set him apart from them. It very much shows he was once was among them. One thing to note God still remains completely superior to Jesus no hint of Jesus being God at all.

Why are you making time period an issue hebrews is more talking about acheivements?

Reniaa

I need some good sriptures & reasoning to refute Jesus = Michael Archangel

Share this