Micheal the ArcAngel/Jesus the man

by plmkrzy 130 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Yadirf

  SaintSatan

  What life was transferred?

  It was the personal life of Michael himself, his being, his very existence, which God transferred into the womb of Mary. Note: Life = existence = soul, even as death = nonexistence. I really don't understand why people here find this so difficult to grasp. What's so hard to understand about the idea that God can, and did, take the life of Michael and implant it into the womb of a woman, which would become known as "Jesus"? Surely that's no more unbelievable than the reverse of that happening, is it? Did not Jesus, who had existed in human form for 33 years, return to being a spirit creature upon being resurrected? Was it not the very same person (life) that had come down from heaven that then returned to heaven?

  Yadirf
• 

  siegswife

  The first thing, the first born of creation was the creation of His Name. The Word.
• 

  DakotaRed

  Plm,

  Intriging thought you just made. Once upon a time, I formulated a thought that God was a superior alien being, not necessarily a spirit, but the accumulation of life from a distant place (sort of like an ET type, I guess). When I first heard about the thought of cloning, that intrigued me too as it would tie right in to my thought of life being created here by distant space travelers.

  Of course, seeing many shows over the years where ancient persons depicted space travelers and space ships (of a sort) in their drawings helped me to think this. Of course, JWs ridiculed these thoughts, but reading your comments on DNA brought the memory of this period back to me.

  This thought could way outside of your questions, though. It was just nice to remember a thought I held long ago.

  If God's Spirit is filling a Kingdom Hall, how is it that Satan can manuever the ones within that Kingdom Hall at the same time?
• 

  pseudoxristos

  The Watchtower points out that Michael is the only Archangel mentioned in the bible; therefore he must be the highest Angel. The parallel of Michael, as the highest angel and Jesus as God's first creation, seems at first to imply that they could be the same. A little background into Jewish thought during the first century will show that this is not necessarily true.

  The Word "Archangel" can be compared to a similar word in the NT, "Chief Priests"

  A Greek Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature

  'archiereus' The pl. is used in the NT and in Joseph to denote members of the Sanhedrin who belonged to high priestly families.

  'archaggelos' A member of the higher ranks in the heavenly host PK 2 p. 14,27. Michael (En. 20, 5;8) is one of them Jd 9. He is also prob. the archangel who will appear at the Last Judgment 1 Th 4:16.

  The Chief Priests are mentioned several times in the NT. It is clear that although there was a Chief Priest over the others, there are many references to the others as Chief Priests. Therefore when someone is referred to as a Chief Priest, it does not necessary mean he is Head of the Priests. The word archangel was used in a similar fashion during that period, as can be seen in the book of Daniel and the some of the writings that did not make it into the bible.

  The book 1 Enoch is the best example of this.

  I Enoch 20:1

  1. And these are names of the holy angels who watch: 2. Suruel, one of the holy angels-for (he is) of eternity and of trembling. 3. Raphael, one of the holy angels, for (he is) of the spirits of man. 4. Raguel, one of the holy angels who take vengeance for the world and for the luminaries. 5. Michael, one of the holy angels, for (he is) obedient in his benovolence over the people and the nations. 6. Saraqael, one of the holy angels who are (set) over the spirits of mankind who sin in the spirit. 7. Gabriel on of the holy angels who oversee the garden of Eden, and the serpents, and the cherubim.

  Most scholars agree that 1 Enoch was composed between the 2nd Cent. BC - 1st Cent. AD. They also believe that the book of Daniel, received its final editing in the 2nd Cent. BC. Both the book of Daniel and the book of Enoch are apocalyptic works, and share many of the same ideas of that period. In the book of Daniel, Michael is referred to as "one of the foremost princes", not as the foremost prince (Da 10:13). This context is much like 1 Enoch, which lists him as just one of many "holy angels". The other reference in Daniel (Da 12:1), "Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people". Again, very much like Michael in 1 Enoch.

  1 Enoch also heavily influenced the book of Jude. The idea of the angels of the flood being held in eternal bonds (Jude 6) is discussed in 1 Enoch 10 1:22. The reference to "Michael" (Jude 9), and the reference to Enoch's prophesy of the myriads of angels (Jude 14), are clear indications of 1 Enoch's influence.

  Jude 14
  Yes, the seventh one [in line] from Adam, Enoch, prophesied also regarding them. When he said: "Look! Jehovah came with his holy myriads.

  
  The Deuterocanonical book of 2 Esdras also refers to the archangel Uriel.

  2Esdr 4:36 And unto these things Uriel the archangel gave them answer, and said, Even when the number of seeds is filled in you: for he hath weighed the world in the balance.

  It is clear from the documents of the 1st Century period that Michael was not considered the only “archangel”. He likely became a favorite of the Christian writers because he was, “the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people”. I see no evidence of a connection between Michael and Jesus.

  The Watchtower has come to this conclusion for the same reason that Russell believed the pyramid was God's Witness in stone. The Watchtower has continually looked for patterns in the Bible, and drawn false conclusions from them. This explains all of the false prophecies and all the strange doctrines that they now have, and all the weird things to come.

  If you look at any complex subject, such as the bible, eventually you will come up with interesting parallels. Throw in a complex structure like the pyramid and you will get Volume III of Studies in the Scriptures.
  This is just another example of the Watchtower’s narrow-minded point of view, and their attempt to be slightly different than other religions, for the sake of impressing those without some background on the subject.
• 

  puzzled

  Satan;

  (The first thing, the first born of creation was the creation of His Name. The Word.)

  I always understood Jesus as being "The Word" not in the same sense we think of words (as alphabets put together to make words) but as our only means of communication to God. we communicate to eachother any way we want but in order to communicate to God and be heard it must be through his Word" Jesus Christ because he was the one who came here to show people how to communicate with God. Or something like that.

  plmkrzy /akapuzzled
• 

  siegswife

  I said that, not Satan. LOL

  I remember reading in the Bible to 'think on the name of Jehovah', or something like that. I took it to heart.

  If someone is totally alone...without anything or anyone else, what could they possibly express in a Word other than their own self?

  There had to be a time when God was alone before the 'firstborn of creation' (which is identified as the Word/Logos)

  I can't imagine what that Word could possibly be other than a Word that perfectly describes God...His own Name. I SHALL PROVE TO BE

  "I think, therefore I am"
• 

  puzzled

  pseudoxristos

  I read everything you wrote and have no problem with any of it I don't disagree with most of it but what about the entire book of Revelations when reading through that or trying to doesn't it appear to you that the battle will be between Jesus and Satan? After all isn't that what this whole existance(as we know it)has been all about?

  plm

  siegswife [I said that, not Satan. LOL]

  SORRY
• 

  Yadirf

  JanH

  Yadirf, it doesn't help that you call it a "gift". That is another metaphor.

  THAT “gift” equates with existence, insofar as the sense I used the word.

  But you indeed seem to argue that "life" is a thing, and then you run counter to offical JW doctrine. After all, we have a gift, we aren't a gift. If life is a gift, and life is soul, then we have a soul, we aren't a soul.

  Breakdown
  “We have a gift”,:Yes … we are privileged to exist (a “gift” from God).
  “we aren’t a gift.”: True.
  “If life is a gift”,: And for a certainty it is.
  “and life is soul,”: And for a certainty it is.
  “then we have a soul,”: No! We have soul, period, not "a soul". Soul = life.
  “we aren’t a soul.”: No! We ARE souls, due to the fact that we embrace life.

  Yadirf
• 

  puzzled

  siegswife

  (I can't imagine what that Word could possibly be other than a Word that perfectly describes God...His own Name.)

  I completely agree with that! I guess i'm just looking at it in a different way. I don't think of it as a actuall 'word' but an expression something has to accompany it (as far as people are concerned) in order for it to have meaning.

  Our children are an expression of ourselves. Not in the same ballpark obviously, i'm just trying to think of an example, . But in a perfect world if we could have everything our way wouldn't we want our children to project the finest qualities we have to give them? They are our 'pride'
• 

  aChristian

  Dakota,

  You wrote: I doubt too many here are still wearing JW glasses. Just becuase we may see and agree with some of their beliefs does not constitute being misled by them. May I recommend you remove the glasses of traditional orthodoxy and then view the Bible.

  I'm not wearing any. I was a JW for 30 years. I am now a Christian, nothing more. I have several "unorthodox" understandings. However, believing like the JWs, that no part of us survives our deaths is not one of them. The Bible clearly teaches that our "spirits" do survive our deaths. I notice that you did not refute any of the scriptural arguments I made for this fact.

  You wrote: If our souls go off to heaven, why does every church teach Matthew 5:5, The meek shall inherit the earth?

  Revelation 5:10 tells us in nearly all translations of the Bible, except for the JW NWT, that those who will rule as kings and priests with Christ will do so "on the earth."