the archangel, an archangel (page 2)

Crazyguy

The book of Enoch also mentions more then one archangel. One thing to remember is angel is a later concept. Earliest Bible writings uses the word Elohim in most places where the word angels is now used. The word Elohim is plural for the word god. The in most cases where one sees the word angel or angels what it really is saying is gods or sons of god.

Anders Andersen

'The archangel' or 'an archangel'.

'The God' or 'a god'.

Potatoes, Pothetoes.

Steel

I remember watching Stephen Kings It as a kid and it just scared the hell out of me, but the ending was just stupid. I thought it was like the writers went on strike or they forgot to pay them, so they walked.

The watchtower explanation of how Jesus is Michael to me is like the writers just gave up. Let's turn him into Michael so we can go home.

The really stupid part is later in when I started to learn about old testament christogy and why certain verses are quoted in the new testament or what new testament writers believed, it became hell a stupid. It really became the issue that convinced me no jw should teach the bible to anyone.

tor1500

Hi,

This very point is what got me to look a little closer at the org. so much so I went on another site and boy did I get some witnesses angry....I chose this X witness and I wrote to them because they were no longer a witness but not bitter they just stated the facts about what and who witnesses are...we got to be good buddies, anyway, I wrote to him about Mike being the archangel and they said I was right about he not being Jesus, I quoted this scripture which is from Heb. 1:5, For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: "You are my son; today I have become your father"? and again, I will become his father and he will become my son?....And another one, Luke 2:21, After 8 days, when it was time to circumcise him, he was named Jesus, the name given by the angels before he was conceived...I have a reservoir of scriptures that can poke that Jesus is Michael the Archangel...and so what if he is...

I could prove heaven from the bible more than I can prove paradise....how many times heaven is mentioned as opposed to paradise ? The reason the org. says Jesus is Mike the Archangel, because it was from another religion and because it wasn't common knowledge as usual the org. adopted this thought just to sound like they know more than anyone else...Just like when the first horseman goes out...the org. thinks it's Jesus when in fact it's one of the 4 horseman to bring destruction...so they say he opens up the scroll, runs out with a bow and no arrow then runs back and open up another scroll and so on....not possible...that'll be a new light one day...if we all live to see it.

Tor

pixel

The WT is dead-set on the "Jesus-is-Michael" thing. And that's the end of that. No matter how many proofs you bring to the table, they just don't care.

They will change this stupid believe ONLY if somehow it affects the $$ collection. I doubt it would.

TD

Just like when the first horseman goes out...the org. thinks it's Jesus...

That's another one that doesn't make a shred of sense. Why on earth would Jesus be riding with those thugs? The idea always struck me as disrespectful in and of itself

snowbird

LOL!

Anything it takes to point to the magical year of 1914, when the other horsemen supposedly began their ride.

Looking back, it makes absolutely zero sense.

Sylvia

joe134cd

Actually one thing the jws don't know is the idea of jesus been Michael the arch angle actually comes from Millerite Adventisim. The SDA also believe a variation of the same thing

Diogenesister

What is it with Watchtower and this damned Germanic hierarchy thing - even the *archangel's* don't get any equality!!!

JWdaughter

You know, 14 years ago we actually INTENSIVELY explored these kind of questions on this site. We were so sincerely worried about how critically important it was. After a certain point, it seems whether or not one really believes in God or the Bible at all that all this is pesky fly in importance. The entire literallness of scripture is no longer even a concern of mine (any scripture). I figure that most of the principles that someone was trying to teach by writing holy books had less to do with dogma than any religious person of today would acknowledge and a lot more about character development of various kinds (for better or worse) Some of the bigger ideas get lost when folks are poking around with "THE" archangel and "AN" archangel. Anythng of value that holy writings have to offer gets totally lost in power struggles of self righteous men. (of all faiths)

the archangel, an archangel

Share this