Contradiction or new light ? (page 2)

XQsThaiPoes

That is because the angel's are elementals.

Seraphs mean fire and cherubs mean wind. It is simple element worship the hebrews are just henotheistic pagans dude.

Technically they are just hebrew wizards.

Kenneson

Michael is not the only archangel. Daniel 10:13 says he is "one" of the foremost princes. It doesn't say he is the only chief prince

ellderwho

Yet, the Scriptures point to the resurrected Jesus Christ as the chief of all angels?Michael the archangel.

Who created the angels?

E

Kenneson

Little witch,

Also, that verse says Jesus is coming with God's trumpet. If an archangel's voice is literal, what about God's trumpet?

The WTS is wrong in assuming that only one "archangel" existed in early Christian thought, Michael was one of several archangels (cf. 1 Enoch 20:1-7). However, Michael was unique for being the main patron, protective deity of the Jewish nation-to-be. But when Michael is mentioned in the NT, he is clearly distinguished from Jesus Christ or is mentioned on his own terms (Jude 9; Revelation 12:7, where Michael fights to protect the Messiah). In subsequent Christian tradition, Jesus is distinguished from Michael (who is one of the angels who accompanied him during the Resurrection), and Jesus himself was denied as being an angel (cf. Hebrews 1; Justin Martyr). So from the standpoint of NT and proto-orthodox Christianity, Jesus was not Michael. But it is also true that some Christians did believe that he was. Why? Primarily because Daniel strongly suggested that the coming Messiah, i.e. the Son of Man figure walking on the clouds of heaven, the one who would rule the earth after the defeat of the Seleucid kings, was Michael, the "prince of princes". The "Son of Man" christology of Jesus thus anticipated the identification of Jesus with Michael. But nowhere is this stated overtly in the NT. The evidence that Michael is the "one like a son of man" and the Messiah in Daniel is discussed in detail in GOD'S CONFLICT WITH THE DRAGON AND THE SEA: ECHOES OF A CANAANITE MYTH IN THE OLD TESTAMENT by John Day (Cambridge: University Press, 1985), pp. 167-178. Just to give some of the evidence that Michael was the Messiah in Daniel:

(1) Daniel never outright identifies Michael with the Son of Man figure ("one who is like a son of man"), but it definitely implies this when we compare the various visions together which all relate the same thing: the destruction of the Seleucid kingdom by the coming Messiah, who will establish a kingdom that will last forever (cf. Daniel 2:41-45; 7:14, 18; 8:11, 25; 9:26-27; 11:45-12:3). In Daniel 12:1, Michael is designated as the "great prince" (hsr hgdwl) who resists the forces of the "king of the North" (the Seleucid king), who "stands up" (an idiom meaning "begin ruling as king"), and ushers in the eternal Messianic kingdom and resurrection of the dead (v. 3-4). The description of Michael as "mounting guard over your people" in 12:1, in the midst of a description of the war between the king of the North and the king of the South (cf. 11:40-45), the mention of "Michael your prince" as supporting the "fight against the prince of Persia" and the "prince of Javan" (10:21), and "Michael one of the leading princes" is described in 10:13-14 as "confronting the kings of Persia". All this suggests that the angelic "prince" (hsr) bearing the name of Michael leads the military fight against the nations persecuting the Jews.

(2) Now consider 8:10-11 which refers to the Seleucid king as challenging "the armies of heaven" and flinging "armies and stars" to the ground, and "even challenging the power of the army's Prince (sr-hzb')". Since Michael is elsewhere described as having this role (cf. 10:21), it is thus important to note that the "army's Prince" is later called the "Prince of Princes (sr-srym)" in 8:25 -- an epithet that is reminiscent of "Prince of the kings of the earth" in Revelation 1:5.

(3) Now, as for the Son of Man figure, he is described as a heavenly (i.e. angelic) figure "coming on the clouds of heaven", who was also part of God's heavenly court (Daniel 7:10, 13). The description of this individual as like a son of man suggests that the figure is not actually human but rather resembles a human being. Such descriptions frequently occur in Daniel as referring to angels. Thus in Daniel 8:15 Gabriel is described as "one having the appearance of a man" and in Daniel 10:16, an angel (possibly Gabriel) is referred to as "one in the likeness of the sons of men", and again in Daniel 10:18 as "one having the appearance of a man". Similarly elsewhere the anthropic appearance of the angels is alluded to (cf. Daniel 3:25; 9:21; 12:6-7). The fact that this "one like a son of man" comes with the clouds of heaven suggests a heavenly being. We must take Daniel on its own terms not read Christian theology and eschatology into the book and not read this as a reference to the "second coming" of a resurrected Christ; such a notion is foreign to Daniel.

(4) The "coming" of the Son of Man in Daniel 7 is paralleled by the "Prince (sr) who will come" and "the coming of an anointed (ms'ch) Prince" in 9:25-26. Now, the Son of Man figure is "conferred sovereignty, glory, and kingship" in 7:14, and in 12:1 Michael is the one who "stands up" ('md), an idiom that repeatedly in Daniel refers to beginning one's kingship (cf. 8:22-23; 11:2-3, 20, 21). And the books of judgment are mentioned in connection with Michael in 12:1-2 and with the Son of Man figure and the Ancient of Days in 7:10-13 (cf. Revelation 20:12 ). So there is a general equivalence between the Son of Man figure who "comes" in kingship, the "Messiah the Prince" who also "comes" in kingship, and Michael who "stands up" in kingship.

(5) The "one like a son of man" is described in Daniel 7 in very Baal-like terms, with the "Ancient of Days" filling in the mythological role of El, the father god. Thus like Baal, he is given kingship after defeating the "beasts" of the sea, subject to El, who also walks upon the clouds like Baal (who has as one of his epithets "Rider of the Clouds"), etc. Now what is interesting is that Michael is also mythologically derived from Baal. Michael's role as patron deity is exactly that of Baal and pre-exilic Yahweh, and rabbinical traditions on Michael present him as the bringer of rain and snow in fall and winter, just like Baal! (cf. Midrash Rabba, Job 25:2).

(6) A Messianic role can be found for Michael in the War Scroll (first century B.C.), who is appointed to combat and subdue the "prince of the realm of wickedness", in a divine war that comes very close to the struggle described in Daniel 11-12:

"You appointed the Prince of Light from of old to assist us, for in his lot are all the sons of righteousness and all sprits of truth are in his dominion....Today is God's appointed time to subdue and to humiliate the prince of the realm of wickedness. He will send eternal support to the company of his redeemed by the power of his majestic angel of the authority of Michael. By eternal light he shall joyfully light up the covenant of Israel -- peace and blessing for the lot of God -- to exalt the authority of Michael among the gods and dominion of Israel among all flesh. (War Scroll, 1QM 13:10; 17:5-8)

The "book of Similitudes" of 1 Enoch , on the other hand, distinguishes the Son of Man "whose face was like that of a human being and his countenance was full of grace like one of the holy angels" and who would "depose kings and mighty ones from their thrones" from Michael, who is one of the four archangels blessing the Lord of Spirits (40:4, 9; 41:1-5). Revelation designates Michael as the commander of the heavenly hosts in 12:7, but distinguishes him from the Messiah who "rules all the nations with an iron sceptre" (12:5). The Jewish expectation of an angelic deliverer (as attested in the Dead Sea Scrolls) undoubtedly contributed to the early belief of Jesus Christ as an angel, a view that Hebrews 1:1-14 is designed to refute. The synoptic gospels characterize Jesus as the "Son of Man", utilizing the motifs in Daniel 7 as did 1 Enoch , but do not go so far as identify him with Michael. So while Michael and the Son of Man figure are likely one and the same within Daniel, this does not mean that the Gospel writers conceived of the Son of Man in the same way.

dan

Michael is actually the pre-mortal Adam; Jehovah is the pre-mortal Christ. Don't worry, I'm ready for ya.

Kenneson

Leolaia,

Since Michael was looked upon as the prince of the Jewish nation, who was the prince of Persia and the prince of Greece? Were these also angels? (Dan. 10:13, 20)

blondie

Just to clear up one point, the article says "God's Word provides the names of only two of God's faithful angels, Michael and Gabriel. (Daniel 8:16; 12:1, Luke 1:26; Jude 9)."

Strangely enough, my JW mother taught me as a child that the angels heard our prayers and relayed them to heaven. We always tried to see the angel at the KH. I am doing a little historical research to see if this has any written foundation in the WT publications. The WTS has never taught that their members should pray TO the angels.

If I find anything, or anyone else knows of any citation, please share.

Blondie

outnfree

Very interesting thread!

I would say it's a contradiction.

Who remembers being consistently told that the angels were helping to direct the preaching work? Even if we didn't directly pray at the Meeting for Field Service for the angel's intercession, it was understood that there could be worthy persons behind any door whom the angels were helping us to reach because they had prayed to God (possibly through saints or angels!) for help.

Also, how many have stories/beliefs/explanations that it must have been Jehovah's angels who stepped in when they found themselves in physical peril while in the preaching work? I myself felt it was an angel who must have blocked a German shephard from tearing my daughter's face off when we were at one rural call (although I've since been told the breed is very protective towards children - ((obi)) ).

Of course, if Jesus is Michael and Michael is an angel and angels don't intercede that STILL would make perfect sense in JW theology for the average publisher, because for the vast majority of witnesses Jesis is NOT the Mediator. Problem being, most are happily oblivious to the fact that they have the GB for their mediator, and only the "anointed" get Jesus as Mediator. The 'other sheep' only reap the "benefits" of Christ's Mediatorship through the "anointed." I don't think the GB really mind the contradiction since they know that Michael/Jesus IS their Mediator and that there are two classes of Christians.

out

badboy

It said in Battle of ARMaggeddon,published back in 1912 that Michael was CHRIST.

Contradiction or new light ?

Share this