Happy Guy, I don't argue that Jesus and Michael are the same, nor was that the impetus behind my "rationalization" of the authors of Matthew and Mark putting the text of Psalm 22:1 (the first sentence of it, yes) in the mouth of Jesus at his dying moment.
You wrote: "Using the logic of him quoting Psalm 22:1 is flawed as he did not quote the full Psalm."
Without trying to be facetious, that's just about the weirdest argument I've ever heard. The New Testament is full of partial quotations of passages from the Hebrew Bible, and Jesus in the gospels and Paul in his letters did it--often. Surely you don't want a full catalogue of examples, but the clue usually entails Jesus starting with the phrase 'it is written.' If I had said Jesus' words "recall" Psalm 22:1, would that have been more accurate? By way of an additional example, Happy Guy, compare Deuternomy 15:11,
"For the poor will never cease {to be} in the land; therefore I command you, saying, 'You shall freely open your hand to your brother, to your needy and poor in your land.'" and Mark 14:7,
"For you always have the poor with you, and whenever you wish you can do good to them; but you do not always have Me."
but also Matthew 26:11
"For you always have the poor with you; but you do not always have Me."
and
John 12:8
"For you always have the poor with you, but you do not always have Me."
the last two are almost identical--all of these are taken from the NASB. Jesus did not say he was quoting. If he was, he did not quote the entire passage from Deuteronomy. Perhaps he was, you might say, *recalling* the scripture in Deuteronomy? Perhaps, as is likely the case, the hearers of either the forsaken line or the poor line would immediately recall the source. In any case, to insist on what the gospel writer or Jesus must have been thinking at that moment, then to further extrapolate from that invented speculation on his pre-earthly identity, is a far stretch. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Michael is Jesus either, but my argument for that would have nothing to do with Jesus purported fear on the cross based on a multiplied improbability--that he actually said what the gospel writers put in his mouth, and that what he did say was no more a quote than it was an intentional echo of a Psalm because he did not cite "the entire Psalm."
euripides
JoinedPosts by euripides
-
251
Is Jesus Christ and Michael the ArchAngel one and the same person?
by booker-t ini must admit that as a jw i never really swallowed this belief maybe because i was so young when i was really a staunch jw.
i would have born-again christians tell me that it was impossible for jesus and michael to be the same person and that jw's invented this doctrine.
fast forward to 2004 while i was reading a book on jesus i noticed that some of the early church fathers thought michael was jesus christ i almost fell out of my chair.
-
-
euripides
-
251
Is Jesus Christ and Michael the ArchAngel one and the same person?
by booker-t ini must admit that as a jw i never really swallowed this belief maybe because i was so young when i was really a staunch jw.
i would have born-again christians tell me that it was impossible for jesus and michael to be the same person and that jw's invented this doctrine.
fast forward to 2004 while i was reading a book on jesus i noticed that some of the early church fathers thought michael was jesus christ i almost fell out of my chair.
-
-
euripides
Hi Happy Guy, you wrote, "2. When Jesus was crucified, his last remark was "God why have you forsaken me?" He was frightened. If Jesus had actually spent thousands of years previously living in Heaven as Michael with God almighty in all his Heavenly glory then why should Jesus be afraid of dying and leaving this miserable Earthly plane only to return back to his Heavenly bliss with God almighty. I put it to you that it is because Jesus had never experienced it and therefor had been going only on faith."
Well he was either frightened or suddenly overcome with the urge to quote Psalm 22:1. Or, as I prefer to think, the authors of the gospels of Matthew and Mark (but not Luke and John) felt it was important to show Jesus' particularly Jewish roots at that moment, as well as his identification with King David, as well as, of course, the more human side of Jesus.
There being no *human* side to Michael makes it difficult to match him with the human Jesus. -
251
Is Jesus Christ and Michael the ArchAngel one and the same person?
by booker-t ini must admit that as a jw i never really swallowed this belief maybe because i was so young when i was really a staunch jw.
i would have born-again christians tell me that it was impossible for jesus and michael to be the same person and that jw's invented this doctrine.
fast forward to 2004 while i was reading a book on jesus i noticed that some of the early church fathers thought michael was jesus christ i almost fell out of my chair.
-
-
euripides
Hi Sabrina, When I asked what was at stake in saying that Michael and Jesus are not the same, you replied in a way that made it seem that you were just seeking the truth about Michael, and thus because the Scriptures assign him an important place but are not clear on fleshing out the rest of his identity, he must be Jesus. As you say, there is a reason he is there and that reason must be that he is Jesus! But you are still beginning with a theological premise, which is to say that nothing in the text shows up for any other reason than it was *meant* to be there. In searching for deeper meaning behind the identity of Michael, Jesus is the default setting. There is something behind the importance of identifying Jesus with Michael, and that is Scriptural cohesiveness and theological consistency. You rightly point out that the frustrating part of denying Jesus is Michael is that it leaves unresolved the full identity of Michael. *But We Can't Know Everything.* There are a thousand examples of things in the Scriptures which are ambiguous or uncertain. Michael is actually one of the few that isn't that unclear based on the evidence, IMO. Michael's identity evolved in church doctrinal history, and as he is used by the scriptures themselves. He is a fluid character imbued with meaning and significance that grows according to circumstance, thus Jude's Michael (based on 1 Enoch's and the Assumption of Moses' Michael) has grown in the 200 years since Daniel's Michael. Another contributor made the analogy to Abaddon/Apollyon, who is still identified with Jesus by the WT society. Just because there is a significant character doesn't mean its Jesus, does it? However, little of this will be sensical if there is a presumption of coherence and inherent unity. Jesus is Michael, dogmatically, and that is that. I like your analogy of DNA 'infiltration,' but it seems to me that if the analogy were carried on to its logical conclusion it would demonstrate the opposite of your intended point. Compare Job 31:9-12, where destruction is at the eventuality of adulterous affairs. Of course the scriptures don't operate in a vacuum, neither does the Constitution. When you talk about establishing rightness or wrongness, I have no idea to what you are referring. The Scriptures never said Michael was unequivocally Jesus. We *must* look outside the text to find full understanding and interpretation. That was the point of my analogy to the Eighth Amendment. Whether the Eighth Amendment is *right,* no one is arguing. Whether Michael does not *rightfully* have a place in the Judeo-Christian heavenly host, no one is arguing. To what the Eighth Amendment refers, its meaning behind a simple phrase, is the source of much heated debate. And, judging by these three web pages of discussion on this board, so also is whether Michael is Jesus.
-
251
Is Jesus Christ and Michael the ArchAngel one and the same person?
by booker-t ini must admit that as a jw i never really swallowed this belief maybe because i was so young when i was really a staunch jw.
i would have born-again christians tell me that it was impossible for jesus and michael to be the same person and that jw's invented this doctrine.
fast forward to 2004 while i was reading a book on jesus i noticed that some of the early church fathers thought michael was jesus christ i almost fell out of my chair.
-
-
euripides
Sabrina, you wrote "If we are discussing a Bible topic then it must be proven or disproven by the Bible itself not outside texts, just as we do not refer to the Parlimentary decisions of King George III to help us prove the rightness or wrongfulness of the Constitution of the United States. The Bible must stand or fall on its own." While this makes for a convenient (and untrue) argument, it makes for neither sound Constitutional nor Biblical scholarship. When judges, scholars, and students analyze the Constitution, they also look behind the writing in a process of analysis using the canons of legal construction as well as referents to sources of the law outside of the Constitution. In this way Supreme Court justices have deciphered the meaning of, for example, Cruel and Unusual Punishment, as it was used in 1791, when the Eighth Amendment was ratified. The term is not transparent by our modern standard. Then, the judges compare other treatises written at the time to see how those terms might have been used. Thus the US Constitution gets interpreted in a process which freely integrates sources from outside the Constitution. What Cruel and Unusual meant then is not how it is applied today, because Justices have also applied 'evolving standards of decency,' in this particular case. [As a sidebar, may I also point out that as English common law is the underpinning to American law, when there is no American law on point, then English law up to the reign of James I is adopted within the body of law. An interesting example I can think of is a divorce case involving the division of a bee colony which drew upon a 16th century English case. But I digress...] However, to return to your point, which is I think that you believe there is an absolute reality behind the identity of Michael, I suspect that therein lies the problem. Happy Guy accurately points out that if it were a crucial point it would not be so oblique within the text. Leolaia accurately points out that the author's meaning behind the text(s) may differ from one text to another, and thus even the early church fathers were confused and disagreed. Put even more simply, what is at stake to say that Michael and Jesus are not the same? Would that endanger the primacy of the role of Jesus? Is that what is perhaps driving the argument?
-
1
"Who Really Rules The World?"
by TrailBlazer04 infound this little tract stuck in my door when i got home today...what a bunch of pessimistic rubbish!
the last paragraph starts with "happily, the time is now near when satan and his cohorts will be no more!
" so, the end is still near, satan rules the world, world conditions suck.... no wonder so many of them look like they've sucked on a lemon..... i can't wait until they come back (if i'm home).
-
-
euripides
Well, Tears For Fears said "everybody *wants* to Rule the world," right?
Honestly, its that kind of attitude which stifles all serious effort to do something about the world we do live in, just bide the time until somebody else does something about injustice etc etc. That apathy is the real consequence and the problem.
-
10
did you diassociate yourself?
by boy@crossroads ini had one of my brothers' witness associates drop me off somewhere earlier tonight.
he's from another congo.
and he knows i haven't been at a meeting in some time.
-
-
euripides
I wrote a simple two sentence letter and mailed it. I did not provide any explanation. I know that others have written and posted exemplary disassociation letters because they are opportunities to highlight iniquity. I had 'responsibilities' and felt that I needed to give them notice that I was done, finito. I also wanted the clean break and to be left alone, free in my mind to get on with my life. But your brother's friend needn't have asked because if you had DA'd yourself formally the news would have spread FAST.
-
251
Is Jesus Christ and Michael the ArchAngel one and the same person?
by booker-t ini must admit that as a jw i never really swallowed this belief maybe because i was so young when i was really a staunch jw.
i would have born-again christians tell me that it was impossible for jesus and michael to be the same person and that jw's invented this doctrine.
fast forward to 2004 while i was reading a book on jesus i noticed that some of the early church fathers thought michael was jesus christ i almost fell out of my chair.
-
-
euripides
Happy Guy, that the term Prince here is used to describe Michael in the book of Daniel is not sufficient evidence to demonstrate that it doesn't refer to Jesus: Jesus is described as a Prince throughout the New Testament... Here are all of KJV's use of the word Prince Mat 9:34 But the Pharisees said, He casteth out devils through the prince of the devils. Mat 12:24 But when the Pharisees heard [it], they said, This [fellow] doth not cast out devils, but by Beelzebub the prince of the devils. Mar 3:22 And the scribes which came down from Jerusalem said, He hath Beelzebub, and by the prince of the devils casteth he out devils. Jhn 12:31 Now is the judgment of this world: now shall the prince of this world be cast out. Jhn 14:30 Hereafter I will not talk much with you: for the prince of this world cometh, and hath nothing in me. Jhn 16:11 Of judgment, because the prince of this world is judged. Act 3:15 And killed the Prince of life, whom God hath raised from the dead; whereof we are witnesses. Act 5:31 Him hath God exalted with his right hand [to be] a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins. Eph 2:2 Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Rev 1:5 And from Jesus Christ, [who is] the faithful witness, [and] the first begotten of the dead, and the prince of the kings of the earth. Unto him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, So Jesus might well have also been described as a king, but just because the term Prince is used does not necessarily show that Jesus is necessarily excluded. However, picking up on Sabrina's comments, I would like to add the following. Sabrina, it is possible to annotate what you have said to come up with the opposite conclusion, even as Happy Guy has. You wrote, "Who can be said to be one of the chief princes of the Jews and at the same time their deliverer?" Judas Maccabeus and his brothers; the Hasmoneans; the Chasidim from the period of the Maccabean crisis, the time period in which this text was written. The answer is Jesus only if you are providing, as I say, a theological answer rather than an historically accurate answer. You wrote "The Bible does not say Michael was one of the chief Archangels but rather it says, Michael is one of the chief princes, one of the chief rulers!" But see Jude 9: But Michael the archangel, when he disputed with the devil and argued about the body of Moses, did not dare pronounce against him a railing judgment, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" Admittedly, this is a difficult passage for those who are squeamish about extracanonical texts, as this is a direct quote from the Assumption of Moses. You wrote, "But Michael as the Archangel, the chief angel, is the only archangel. He is also as Daniel 12 indicates the deliverer of his people at a time of great trouble or tribulation." There is no direct evidence to support that there is only one archangel. However, if you first believe that Jesus must be Michael then his singularity as archangel must follow.
-
5
The Red Tent--a question about the story of Dinah
by athenafirestone ini just finished listening to anita diamant's "the red tent".
this was the second time through for me with this, in my opinion, really good book, but i realized that i have forgotten what the bible actually says about dinah and her brothers (well, but of course, the bible has a lot more to say about her brothers in general, simply because they were male).
i don't have a bible anymore and wouldn't know where to look if i did have one, so i was wondering if someone could point me to the approximate location in the bible of the "story" of dinah.
-
-
euripides
Genesis 34. I believe the book you've read/heard is 'historical fiction.' There is a book I'm working on right now (reading) called Dinah's Rebellion by Ita Sheres, a work of scholarship. I will let you know my take on it when I'm through if you're interested.
-
6
Can a JW get a scriptual divorce if mate is "gay or lesbian"?
by booker-t inthis is a very interesting topic because i know a sister who was married to a homosexual man and stayed with him for years.
back in the earlier days jw's were told that "adultery" was sex with a married person and someone of the opposite sex.
so if a jw women found out her husband was having gay affairs she could not scriptually divorce her husband.
-
-
euripides
So why isn't it the case when a spouse believing/announcing they are homosexual (although have never acted upon it) constitutes "adultery in the heart," and thereby tantamount to the real thing? What is the person supposed to do, lose out on the "marital due," and push their spouse into a homosexual act so they can obtain the divorce? OR by scriptural divorce are we merely referring to the point at which you are free to "scripturally remarry?"
-
251
Is Jesus Christ and Michael the ArchAngel one and the same person?
by booker-t ini must admit that as a jw i never really swallowed this belief maybe because i was so young when i was really a staunch jw.
i would have born-again christians tell me that it was impossible for jesus and michael to be the same person and that jw's invented this doctrine.
fast forward to 2004 while i was reading a book on jesus i noticed that some of the early church fathers thought michael was jesus christ i almost fell out of my chair.
-
-
euripides
Leiolaia, to conduct a proper search for plural forms of Gk archaggelos you would need to search in all plural case endings, namely -oi, -on (omega), -ois, and -ous. However, I admire your thoroughness and academic approach, as I share many of your conclusions. What search engine are you using to look through the early church fathers literature? And I agree that the possibility of more than one archangel is crucial to understanding this point. WT did not invent Michael/Jesus crossover, which arose more out of anti-Catholic sentiment later and Athanasian adherence earlier, because it sought to avoid Jesus sharing of power with other angels who were named in other Jewish literature. In my view, asking if they are the same is to ask a theological question, the answer to which will vary depending on the theological perspective.