Posts by euripides

5

walking on sea or on shore

by peacefulpete in

some have suggested that ?walking upon the sea?

story of mark 6:45-51 was based upon an older resurrection appearance story that mark misinterpreted.

the similarity to luke 24:36-7 (surprised disciples seeing what they took to be a spirit) suggests that mark misunderstood his source?s use of the expression (epi)?on?

Two points: first, the unusual aspect of the Mark narrative of his version of the walking on water story, to me at least, is the comment that "he intended to pass them by." This serves to show that they needed to call to him to get his intention, but it is puzzling all the same. Second, I dont believe that our current form of Mark is truncated and a lot of the hype made about it being so is misplaced. There is thematic unity ending at 16:8, but I realize that is an entirely different discussion. I had never heard the theory of the epi being misunderstood in its application to the water versus the shore, but it is an interesting idea. Obviously Matthew draws from Mark's version and embellishes, and while Peter is hardly mentioned in the earlier narrative the later narrative shows him to be the center of the story's moral of belief/faith. Yet at the end of the Mark narrative, they don't seem to understand what happened, and even afterward Jesus reminds them and they still are confused.

251

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

by booker-t in

i 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

Narkissos, you wrote, "I was thinking of modern readers and speaking somewhat figuratively. As to the early reception of the text, it is a much more complex issue if you take into account the general literacy rate as well as the scarcity and cost of complete manuscripts. Most scripture undoubtedly circulated under the form of testimonia, anthologies, i.e. excerpts of several works linked together for apologetic or parenetic purposes." Ah. Most scholars believe that these texts were disseminated to the churches in their written or copied format, but then were read aloud to the churches (congregations). The same may well have been true of 1 Enoch. So when I say "readers," I suppose I really mean, mainly, listeners. General literacy rates for the Roman empire at the period, based on statistical likelihood thorugh social class, are in the 10% neighborhood. And yes, that leads to the interesting topic of whether Jesus the Nazarene was literate, magic trick in reading from Isaiah in Luke notwithstanding. Perhaps I will start that one next!

251

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

by booker-t in

i 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

As Leolaia very well said, when Jude quotes Enoch he begs his readers to read Enoch. That does not make Enoch canonical, authoritative, inspired or "authentic". It just means it is worth reading -- were it for the only reason of understanding Jude.

Rather he (or she)--the author of Jude--understands that they (the readers/churches) already have read Enoch and are familiar with it (and accept its authority). It is being cited authoritatively. One thing I think which has not been brought up is that it does not seem as if the NT texts which refers to Michael, ie Revelation 12, and Jude 9, seem to presume that their readers understand this archangel to be Jesus. If they did, then it would have been a novel doctrine which presumably would have required further elucidation. Michael they knew, Jesus they now know, but how can they understand, i.e., from their perspective, that Jesus and Michael are the same?

251

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

by booker-t in

i 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

May I begin by saying that I respect and appreciate all those posting on this board, and by no means wish to insult or offend anyone. It is a blessing that we have an open forum where we can discuss at great length topics such as this from so many different angles--I appreciate all of your (pl) input, and am interested in how the discussion proceeds.

Happy Guy, you said,"By the same token and without being facetious I find your logic ridiculous. To suggest that Jesus did not really mean what he was saying that there was no meaning or depth to it but rather he was mindlessly attempting to regurgitate scripture without any actually meaning behind it is really reaching."
I am not suggesting this at all. "Recalling," "echoing," or even "quoting" do not constitute mindless regurgitation in my view.
"The bible says that Jesus said this just before he died. It is a significant statement as it indicates Jesus' fear. Why would you want to deny that this happened?"
Two gospels do report that this is what he said near the moment he died. Both gospel writers also report that this led to a confusion that Jesus was thought to have been calling Elijah. That it was an impassioned thing to say at that moment I don't doubt--knowledgeable bystanders could even have concluded that his plight was similar to that of David's in hiding, wherein each man felt himself forsaken and alone. Fear might well be a natural outgrowth of that emotion. But The Text Does Not Say Jesus Was Afraid. So then, why is it not an interpolation to say that Jesus must have been afraid, especially since you wisely warn against positing "that [the text] says things that it actually does not say"?
And as I have already pointed out, I am not arguing that Jesus and Michael are the same entity, persona, or character, fleshly or otherwise. I think a sophisticated understanding of the Scriptures explores with critical methods that don't add to the Scriptures, nor takes away. Of all people I can assure you I am committed to keeping within the text! Leolaia's input has been extremely valuable as it shows that other texts, which almost certainly were source material and widely disseminated at the time, can enhance understanding of the scant occurrences there are for mention of Michael. As best I can tell, those references seem to point to the fact that Jesus and Michael were not imagined by the Bible writers (or Jesus, if you wish to take that liberty) to be one and the same. Nowhere does Jesus say, I am Michael. No writer says, Michael and Jesus are the same. If to say so becomes (or did become) a necessity theologically, which hearkens back to my question to Sabrina, then so be it. I think the *reason* for the disagreement might help us to understand the issue better.
As always, offered with the utmost respect.

251

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

by booker-t in

i 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, 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."

251

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

by booker-t in

i 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 in

i 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 in

i 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 in

found 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 in

jw
friends

i 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.