Is Jesus Christ and Michael the ArchAngel one and the same person?

by booker-t 251 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Kenneson

  Earnest.

  I would say that some of the Greek Fathers believed that the "Word" was the "Angel of the Lord." But the majority of the Latin Fathers did not. And I agree with the latter. When an angel or prophet speaks in the Bible it is said that the Lord speaks, but surely not because the prophet or angel is really the Lord, but because the prophet or angel is the "vicar" of the Lord. However, in the case of the Son, they believed that he really was God; he was not a substitute.

  Thanks for your clarification.
• 

  AGuest

  May you have peace!

  I know "experts" wouldn't go along with your "theory" because the English word "ark" is derived from the Latin arca "box, chest" and is not related to any Greek or Hebrew words other than Greek arkein "keep off", especially not Greek arkhé "beginning" or arkh- "first, chief" (note the -kh instead of the -k).

  Indeed, I don't believe they would. Unfortunately, I am not one of such "experts", but merely a slave, a servant, and so have to go with what I have received from my Master, the One about whom such things are written... whom I believe to be the true... ummmm... "expert." I might suggest that anyone who truly wishes to understand the truth of this matter look up the prefix for the Greek word denoting "beginning"... and "first"... and make note of ALL of its possibilities... as well as look up the Greek word for "archangel"... and note that there is only one possibility, that which the Greeks assumed the Hebrew meant (when in fact, the Hebrew word denoting an "[angel of the] ark" was the same "ark" as that for "[in the] beginning"). Or, more easily... simply ask the One about whom these things are written so that he can bear witness of this truth to you himself...

  So-called "experts" tend not to confuse unrelated words in distinct languages that have nothing to do with each other.

  I do not disagree. They do, however, mistakenly take words that have been mistransliterated by other "experts"... over milleniums... and derive all kinds of "modern" stuff from them... based on their very limited knowledge of what is true... because they choose to derive their "truths" from what their own self-profession of expertise tells them... rather than simply ask the One about whom such things are written. Of course, they would have to believe they can do that, though... ask... But, of course, asking someone that one cannot see... or hear... (if that is indeed the case) is, of course, "foolishness," isn't it? Of course it is, and any self-respecting, self-professing "expert" would know that, wouldn't they?

  Self-professed "experts" also probably would not take a meaning that developed only in Late Latin or Old English (arca as specifically the "Ark of the Covenant") and apply it to a Greek word (arkhé) that translates a Hebrew word for "beginning" (in Genesis 1:1) and argue that the Hebrew word ought to have as its "TRUE translation" the meaning of the English word.

  No, I don't suppose they would. Poor slaves, however, would argue that the English word that is used to denote what was originally a Hebrew word was mistransliterated from Greeks words that were mistransliterated from Hebrew words... so that the true wording at both Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1 would not be "in the ark" at all, but would actually be... "in the womb"... meaning in the womb of the "woman", the "free wife of God," the spirit realm... Jerusalem Above. Those same poor slaves would also argue, then, that the English word "ark" is incorrect, as is the Greek word arkhe, for neither truly depict the place that is actually being denoted by the word "In"... in the statement "in the beginning." Such slaves would continue with the truth that although most earthling men wish to "see" the words "in the beginning," as commensurate with the words "this is how it all got started," the truth is that the words are trying to tell any who have ears to hear that the physical realm was created IN a certain place... came OUT of that certain place... and that my Lord, too, was IN that certain place... the spirit realm... from which all things came out OF. IN... the "ark". Or rather, IN the womb. And isn't that where ALL life comes from? Where ALL are "born" from? Such poor slaves would say that if the "experts" are looking for a place from which to start their "big bang" theory... they might start there: the womb of the universe. For it indeed exists.

  Silly "experts" are far too restrained to their thinking and don't arbitrarily confuse words from separate languages as well as they should.

  (Hmmmm, I'm a-thinkin' someone shoulda' told them that before they started doing it!) Unfortunately, the "experts" of today have nothing to start with BUT such "arbitrarily confuse[d] words from separate languages." Because what they base their... ummmmm... conclusions on... comes from such. It started before they took over, actually, and all they have to go on is what was written AFTER the confusion started. I am sure you can "do the math" on that one.

  After all, what do "experts" know?

  Unfortunately (and to the detriment of a great many), not enough, and certainly not what they think they do. Although we may never agree on this and a good many other points, dear Leolai, I bid you the greatest of peace. A slave of Christ, SJ
• 

  AGuest

  May you have peace!

  Aside from the lack of linguistic evidence for the claim that various NT books were originally written in Hebrew-Aramaic

  Perhaps you should check with the "experts" on this, dear one, as they (surprise!) are in agreement with what I've shared on this.

  I understood your assertion as to pertains to the NT, but do you mean here that the OT as well was originally written in Greek and translated into Hebrew-Aramaic? For you to base your claim on the "TRUE meaning" of Genesis 1:1 on translation from the Greek Septuagint, it would seem that you are making this claim?!?!?!

  Well, I'll let you discern for yourself: with regard to the OT portion, the modern Bible, whatever version (save the King James Version), is derived primarily from the King James version, which was derived from the Latin Vulgate, which was derived... from the Greek Septuagint. Which is written... in Greek. The OT was originally written, however, in Hebrew, Syro-Chaldean... and Aramaic (which is a language derived from combining Hebrew and Syro-Chaldean dialects).

  Hebrew bereshith "in beginning" in Genesis 1:1 is a mistranslation from the Greek????

  My dear, the oldest version of the OT known to us is not written in Hebrew: it was written in Greek. Therefore, if you have a Hebrew translation... it was translated... from Greek. Which Greek was transliterated by Greek-speaking Jews (who were not commissioned by God, and so did not have holy spirit guiding them, but took it upon themselves to make such translation because they wanted to ensure that other Greek-speaking Jews also had "the Law and the Prophets"). Which Greek... was transliterated from the original languages of Hebrew, etc. (Which transliteration was SO "off" that it caused a great an uproar. Huge. Morever, the Greek Septuagint was created long before my Lord walked the earth... like 300 years before... and yet, he NEVER referred his disciples to it. Rather, he CONDEMNED the "scribes"... those "self-professed experts" who charged themselves with copying the scriptures... and thus proved to have "false styluses" (which was prophesized) for this very reason. But I digress...) I am no "expert," dear Leolai, not at all. I do not know these things because I have spent years poring over dusty and decrepit Greek texts and Hebrew scrolls and Egyptian papyruses. I do not know them because I have studied ancient languages in archaic schools with well-robed pontuses or recluse monks. I know them only because I received them from the One about whom they are written. I am sorry, but I have no other "credential" to share with you, and I absolutely understand if it is beyond you to accept. It is not "rocket science;" it is very simple and elementary... and unfortunately, what is most simple to grasp is, for many of us, most difficult. Again, I bid you the greatest of peace. A slave of Christ, SJ
• 

  Narkissos

  Ecstatic philology seems to be a fascinating discipline. I doubt it gains anything from a debate with "ordinary" linguistics though...
• 

  Earnest

  Ecstatic philology...what a wonderful expression...doubtless has its adherents, and I remain somewhat sceptical myself. However, even ordinary linguistics offers some support to preference for early Greek translation of the OT. In a discussion on the divine council of Deuteronomy 32:8, Michael Heiser makes the following observation :

  The dictum that MT is to be preferred over all other traditions whenever it cannot be faulted linguistically or for its content, unless in isolated cases there is good reason for favoring another tradition, is all too enthusiastically echoed. This idea seems to suggest that whenever an MT reading could be accepted it should be accepted. Such an approach hardly does justice to non-MT readings that also could be acceptable on their own linguistic and contextual terms. Put another way, the above mantra never addresses why we must hold MT in such esteem. Where there are wide and significant textual divergencies between MT and the LXX, many textual studies have shown that the Qumran witnesses demonstrate the reliability of the transmission of the Hebrew text underlying the LXX. [e.g. The Qumran Text of Samuel and Josephus by Eugene Ulrich, 1978]. For example, it is well known that the MT of the books of Samuel is in poor condition in a number of places, suffering instances of significant haplography. The books of Kings are riddled with both short and lengthy pluses and minuses, transpositions, and chronological differences . Likewise, portions of the MT of Ezekiel, especially chapters 1 and 10, could serve as a veritable digest of textual corruptions. Lastly, the MT of the book of Jeremiah is fully one-sixth longer than the text of the LXX. If the widely-followed principle of textual criticism that "the shorter reading is to be preferred" (due to a scribe?s tendency to add rather than delete words) has any merit at all, the MT of Jeremiah would have to be considered an undeniably expansionistic text.

  Earnest
• 

  ellderwho

  Ecstatic philology seems to be a fascinating discipline.

  ~chuckles~ Nicely put Nark.
• 

  Leolaia

  Since you consider your beliefs to be "received from the Lord" (I guess like the Apostle Paul), it appears that it bothers you not that arca "box" is Latin, not Greek, or that Hebrew versions like the Dead Sea Scrolls are not translations from the Greek. As for myself, I've received from my Master (he's such a baiter) that "archangel" really means "Shy Angel" (cf. Finnish arka "shy") and at the same time it also means "Sun Angel" (cf. Sanskrit arka "the sun"), or "Steppe Angel" (cf. Kazakh arka "steppe"), "Arka Angel" (cf. Arka, a town in Syria), and even "Narrow Angel" (cf. Quenyan [High Elvish] arka "narrow"). My "Archangel" is many things, indeed all things, at once.
• 

  Narkissos

  Earnest:

  Of course the Masoretic Text is not necessarily reliable as it reflects nothing but the Middle-Ages rabbinical textual tradition. The Greek LXX is much older and in many cases appears to be based on a different Hebrew text. This was confirmed by the Qumran "Biblical" manuscripts which do contain different Hebrew editions of the same texts (some corresponding to a probable LXX Vorlage, others to a premasoretic text, still others to the Samaritan Pentateuch for instance). Only after Jerusalem fell in 70 and the Pharisees accessed to an unchallenged position of control on Judaism all divergent traditions were eliminated, with only one kind of text (the premasoretic) being transmitted as the official version.

  But the fact that in many places the LXX reflects an older Hebrew text in no way suggests that the original Hebrew text, or even the Masoretic text for that matter, is dependent on a Greek original, as AGuest seems to imply (or did I misread her?).
• 

  AGuest

  But the fact that in many places the LXX reflects an older Hebrew text in no way suggests that the original Hebrew text, or even the Masoretic text for that matter, is dependent on a Greek original, as AGuest seems to imply (or did I misread her?).

  Unfortunately, you did misread me, dear Narkissos, but not to worry (peace to you!).

  The original Hebrew text is just that: the original. So that the original Hebrew... cannot be dependent upon a Greek original, but rather, what is TRUE is that the Hebrew translations we have today... are based on a Greek MIStransliteration... from Hebrew. And not even the original Hebrew! (Jeremiah 8:8)

  So that, the Hebrew we have today is NOT original at all, but taken from Greek... and thus had to be translated back. The error occurred when the Hebrew... was translated to Greek... which was translated back to Hebrew... and then again, to Greek... to Latin... to Olde English... to Middle English... to modern English. In each of the subsequent languages, there were words in the previous for which there were no corresponding words in the translation/transliteration.

  Soooooo... the "scribes" changed them to whatever they THOUGHT such words should be/meant, based on their OWN understanding (or lack thereof!)... and so NOW... the word that, in Hebrew, originally meant "womb," from which both life and death come, was turned into something like "coffin," which in turn was changed into something like "container", which was turned into the something like "box," which is turn was changed into something like "ark."

  Thus, today, we have the ENGLISH word "ark"... taken from a Latin word... taken from a Greek word... taken from Hebrew word... that was changed to begin with.

  And while I may not be able to put it as succinctly or intelligently (albeit, tongue-in-cheek) as dear Leolaia, her statement that:

  "Shy Angel" (cf. Finnish arka "shy") and at the same time it also means "Sun Angel" (cf. Sanskrit arka "the sun"), or "Steppe Angel" (cf. Kazakh arka "steppe"), "Arka Angel" (cf. Arka, a town in Syria), and even "Narrow Angel" (cf. Quenyan [High Elvish] arka "narrow"). My "Archangel" is many things, indeed all things, at once.

  is exactly my point: some words have MANY meanings in other languages, and some words means DIFFERENT things in different languages... and we have arrogantly ASSUMED a word to mean something it entirely does not (i.e., "archangel = chief angel") because of what the prefix "arch" means in languages totally different from what it was originally intended to depict.

  Michael... is not an "archangel" by means of being a first or chief angel; he is an angel of the Ark... of the Covenant. As was the one that is now called Satan and Devil. They were both cherubs that were "covering" that Ark... their faces toward the Propitiatory... or True Cover... until one looked away FROM that cover... to gaze upon himself and his own beauty.

  That... is what is written, for you and anyone else to read... and it is the same that has been told to me by my Lord, JAHESHUA MISCHAJAH, the Son and Christ of the Most Holy One of Israel, whose name is JAH... of Armies. It is the truth. Whether you hear... or refrain.

  I bid you, dear Narkissos, and you, too, dear Leolaia... the greatest of peace.

  A slave of Christ,

  SJ
• 

  Narkissos

  AGuest,

  Just one question (to either you or your Lord ):

  As I said in response to Earnest, the Greek LXX translation (and some of the Qumran Hebrew Biblical scrolls) sometimes reflects a Hebrew original which is probably older than the extant Hebrew masoretic text. In such cases, pretty obviously, the Greek LXX translation is different from the extant Hebrew masoretic text. So how would the latter be a translation of the former?

  Please try to understand me: I for one am not hostile to your approach. The similarity between "arch" and "ark" can be fully meaningful to you. Psychoanalysis, for instance, always works with such similarities between words within the subject's language (or several languages actively or passively known to him/her). It's a synchronic approach, fully valid on its own ground. But this doesn't work in exegesis, which is only interested in what a text in a given language could mean to its readers at a given stage of its formation/edition/transmission. Some verbal links which are valid in the first approach are just impossible in the second.