If solid proof were suddenly found that the Book of Enoch should be included in the standard Bible, would that pose a problem for the Jehovah's Witnesses in regards to Michael the Archangel as Jesus? (page 3)

Band on the Run

They don't care about consistency. Doctrines come and go. One item remains - control.

Recently, I read Constantine's Sword, which detailed the history of Jews interactions with Christians in Europe. There was a section dealing with the infallibiity of the pope. The same pope who did not fight the Nazis suggested it as doctrine. When he declared his intentions, almost half of the cardinals present immediately left the room in protest. They were furious. Anyone with a sense of history knows how crazy the doctrine is. No Witnesses walk out save Ray Franz.

Chariklo

Aware, the Archangel Michael was the chief of the angels. Top archangel.

But I don't know where the references are. That's from my Catholic background.

trailerfitter

Something that always puzzled me about the JWs claims to be akin to the 1st century christians. I understand by watching factual documentaries produced by the BBC that the bible editing was decided upon and cannonised in the 4th Century but before then there were many Christian sects, disjointed groups and many more books around that the groups used before Constantine decided the babble was to be standardised and enforced. Did I miss out a part somewhere or was the NWT actually written in the fist century AD ??. (smirks at the though of the WT claims to this)

Leolaia

mP...That's actually a really interesting question. The rise of angelology and demonology accompanied the rise of monotheism over against earlier henotheism. Yahweh was originally a tutelary deity in subjection to El, the head of the pantheon, and Yahweh appears in the oldest sources in the role as a divine warrior, which is reflected in the cult of the ark of the covenant and his title yahweh-ts e ba'ôt "he who musters the (divine) armies". Yahweh also had different regional varieties, "Yahweh of Samaria" and "Yahweh of Teman" (the Sh e ma may well be aimed at denying localized forms of the god), possibly others. Generally speaking, Yahweh merged with El and became the central deity of Israel/Judah, but it is possible that localized forms still persisted and the older henotheistic scheme can be found in the post-exilic period in the Hebrew apocalypse of Daniel, where Michael takes the role that Yahweh formerly had: he heads the divine armies and he is the "prince" that represents Israel (just as there are other princes representing the other nations, like the "prince of Greece"). So I think this function of Michael, as the commander of the heavenly armies (as also he is in Revelation 12; cf. Michael's frequent title in Greek, arkhistratègos "chief commander"), draws on older Israelite concepts about Yahweh. But he also has a very different function elsewhere: he is the psychopomp that accompanies the souls of the righteous to heaven (it is in this role that he appears in the Assumption of Moses and the epistle of Jude; cf. also the Testament of Abraham, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Testament of Isaac, the Greek Life of Adam and Eve, etc.). This is very different from his other function, and likely suggests that Michael represents a merger between two originally independent deities. The other archangels (and fallen angels) can potentially be identified with earlier Canaanite and Israelite gods....Raphael, for instance, probably derives from a god of healing....Jeremiel/Remiel possibly derives from a chthonic deity....etc.

Chariklo

That's incredibly interesting, Leolaia. I'd heard some of that before, but not most of it.

What are the oldest sources giving this history of Yahweh, please? it really puts things into perspective.

I'm sending you a PM, not really about this but touching on it.

mP

mP -> Leo

But where did Michael originate, obvious ly he a warrior prince god but from which culture, or has this been lost in time ?

kurtbethel

It really wouldn't matter. There are already many parts of canon that negates WT doctrine, and they explain it away with practiced ease. They would tell the flock what this means, who would then do their accustomed head bobble routine, and life would go on as it was before.

james_woods

I have always thought that the Witnesses clung so stubbornly to the <Michael = Jesus> doctrine because it represents a further proof to them that Jesus is NOT GOD.

Bella15

I love the book of Enoch, and the book of Adam and Eve, the Book of Bees, The book of the cave of treasures, etc, etc, etc ...

If solid proof were suddenly found that the Book of Enoch should be included in the standard Bible, would that pose a problem for the Jehovah's Witnesses in regards to Michael the Archangel as Jesus?

Share this