Posts by Earnest

103

Jesus is Michael the Archangel

by Fisherman in

only jesus has the power and authority to defeat satan and kick him out of heaven:.

“now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our god and the authority of his christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our god.”.

Earnest

Sea Breeze : Of course there was [uncertainty about who Jesus was in the first century] .... UNTIL he stated on several occasions that he would die and resurrect himself after three days....and then did it.

This quite ignores the substance of my post that Jesus was viewed as "the angel of Jehovah" in Jude and elsewhere. But, to address your point, John makes quite clear that when Jesus said (John 2:19,21) "in three days I will raise [the temple of my body] up", he was using a figure of speech, as he then wrote "when he was raised up [not 'when he raised himself up'] from the dead, his disciples recalled this". Scripture is quite clear (e.g. Galations 1:1) it is "God the Father who raised him up from the dead".

Jesus is either using a figure of speech or he is God the Father, and sits at his own right hand (Ephesians 1:20). No in between here.

Fisherman : You can read [Daniel 10:13] that [there are other "foremost princes"] but in harmony with all the other scriptures, the verse is not implying that there are many archangels.

I'm not so sure about that. 1 Thessalonians 4:16 says that the Lord will descend from heaven "with an archangel's voice", not "the archangel's voice" which you would expect if there was only one archangel. Jews at the time of Christ believed in several archangels. For example, the War Scroll from Qumran (1QM 9.14-16) names four - Michael, Gabriel, Sariel and Raphael. 1 Enoch 20 lists seven. The fact is that while scripture only refers to one archangel by name, there is nothing to rule out there being more than one and Daniel 10:13 seems to support that.

You say that "there is no other conclusion because Michael defeats and evicts Satan and only Jesus can do that". Disillusioned JW came up with an interesting suggestion that "maybe Michael the Archangel is the angel of Jesus Christ, an angel directly under the command of Jesus Christ". That would meet your objection, wouldn't it? All I am really saying is that we should not go beyond the things that are written, and while there are good reasons for identifying Jesus as the archangel Michael, it is not explicit in scripture and so should not be a core belief.

3

Dennis Christiansen release

by riblah in

does anyone know exactly how/why he was arrested?

i know it was for practicing the religion, but did he and others totally ignore the law in russia and continue meeting openly and going door to door or were they trying to avoid detection?

did the gb instruct people there to either stop or continue activities there after it was outlawed (i'm sure there's nothing in writing)?.

Earnest

https://www.jw.org/en/news/jw/region/russia/arrest-detention-dennis-christensen/

103

Jesus is Michael the Archangel

by Fisherman in

only jesus has the power and authority to defeat satan and kick him out of heaven:.

“now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our god and the authority of his christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our god.”.

Earnest

Earnest : They both share similar roles so it may be inferred [that Jesus and Michael are the same] but it is not explicit, and so I don't consider the viewpoint conclusive.
Fisherman : Although I agree, Are the scriptures intentionally misleading the reader to conclude erroneously?

No, I don't think so. There are many roles which both God and Christ have, but that does not mean the scriptures intentionally mislead the reader to erroneously conclude God and Christ are the same. What I am saying, as far as JWs are concerned, is that I don't think that identifying Jesus as Michael should be a core doctrine. It is not explicit.

Further, in my own mind I find it difficult to reconcile Daniel 10:13 with there only being one archangel. It says "... then Michael, one of the foremost princes, came to help me ..." If there are other "foremost princes" then I wonder whether Michael's position is as unique as that of Jesus. I have no doubt that for some this can be reconciled but it gives me pause for thought not to be too dogmatic on the subject.

9

The attorneys gave us bad advice.

by Lost in the fog in

the attorneys gave them bad advice, and when contacted the wt says we don't comment on specific cases.

what a cop out!.

https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20220521/jehovahs-witness-elders-who-failed-to-report-child-abuse-got-bad-advice-say-local-pastors-attorneys.

Earnest

Boogerman : The mother should have been charged as well - and hammered by the judge!

Parents are not mandatory reporters, neither is anyone not involved in a professional capacity.

103

Jesus is Michael the Archangel

by Fisherman in

only jesus has the power and authority to defeat satan and kick him out of heaven:.

“now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our god and the authority of his christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our god.”.

Earnest

Sea Breeze : You got the wrong Jesus.

There was a lot of uncertainty about who Jesus was in the first century, and it is possible that the writer of Hebrews was addressing the view that Jesus was just an angel. As you say, Jesus was different because he was the only-begotten son, although I was not aware the scriptures use the term "essence".

However, there are other parts of scripture that indicate Jesus was the one the OT refers to as the angel of Jehovah. For example, Paul says in 1 Corinthians 10:4 that when the Israelites were in the wilderness "they used to drink from the spiritual rock that follows them, and that rock meant the Christ." Jude is even more explicit saying (in vs 5) that Jesus "saved a people out of the land of Egypt". This echoes Numbers 20:16 which says that God sent an angel and brought us out of Egypt, and Isaiah 63:9 where it says that God's own personal messenger (or, "the angel of his presence") saved them.

Interestingly, Justin Martyr routinely identifies the subject of OT theophanies with the pre-existent Christ or Logos. So (in Dialogue with Trypho, 56, 60, 126) it was the Logos who visited Abraham with two angels and destroyed Sodom, who wrestled with Jacob at Jabbok (Dialogue with Trypho, 58), and who appeared to Moses in the burning bush (Dialogue with Trypho, 59-60, 126-127). While Justin's understanding may not be correct, and his writings are certainly not equivalent to scripture, it certainly shows that this understanding was held by some. How does Justin countenance this understanding with the view that Jesus is superior to the angels? He explains, as I did, that the Logos is called "angel" because he is the messenger from God to humanity (Dialogue with Trypho, 56.4, 10; 76.3), not because he is the same as the angels.

Having said all this, I should add that scripture does not directly teach that Jesus is the archangel Michael. They both share similar roles so it may be inferred but it is not explicit, and so I don't consider the viewpoint conclusive.

103

Jesus is Michael the Archangel

by Fisherman in

only jesus has the power and authority to defeat satan and kick him out of heaven:.

“now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our god and the authority of his christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down, who accuses them day and night before our god.”.

Earnest

Disillusioned JW: How can Jesus be angel, even the Archangel Michael, if Jesus has become better than ALL the angels?

Hi DJW, this verse in Hebrews has been a puzzle to me but I wonder whether it does not revolve around what an angel is. Hebrews 1:7 (quoting from Psalm 104:4) says "He makes his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire." Hebrews 1:14 concurs that they are "all spirits for holy service, sent out to minister for those who are going to inherit salvation?".

So angels are spirits. God is also a spirit (John 4:24) but that does not make him an angel. The word for 'angel' in both Hebrew and Greek means messenger, so the function of an angel is to be a messenger. It also says in the above two verses from Hebrews that they are ministers for those who are going to inherit salvation.

There are other spirit creatures that have other functions. There are seraphs (meaning 'burning ones') who seem to be involved in praising Jehovah (Isaiah 6:1-3). There are cherubs who seem to have special duties, the first mention of them being to guard the way to the tree of life (Genesis 3:24).

So, my conclusion is that describing a spirit as an angel is not referring to its nature (being a spirit), but is referring to its function (as a messenger/minister). While both Jesus and the angels are spirits, their primary function is different. We know Jesus has many functions which the angels do not have, so he is rightly distinguished from them. But one of his functions is as a messenger, Malachi 3:1 describing him as the "messenger of the covenant". So, it would not be wrong to describe him as an archangel (chief messenger) but, unlike the angels, that is not his primary function.

12

Norway Supreme Court Makes WTS Reinstate Disfellowshipped Member

by Golden4Altar in

the supreme court corrects a mistake.

massimo introvigne.

article source.

Earnest

The court did not reach any conclusion as to whether GN had been raped or not. The court record says:

For the sake of clarity, it is noted that the majority has no opinion on whether GN has actually been the victim of a rape within the meaning of the Criminal Code. Whether a possible rape was committed intentionally, neither can nor should the majority consider. These questions also affect the legal security of the man in question.
... in the minority's view, it would be contrary to basic legal security standards for the protection of the man to find it proven that she had been raped by him.

Not only that, but according to the court record GN has not reported the alleged rape to the police, and did not want to involve the man in either of her committee cases or in the case before the courts.

If she did not want to involve the man in the case or report it to the police, then why did she make the claim of rape? The congregation claimed in their court statement:

The argument of GN that she has been disfellowshipped because of rape, is an attempt to avoid dismissal of the case before the court. The purpose is to make a case that the court can consider. In connection with this, it must be pointed out that there is agreement that Jehovah’s Witnesses do not disfellowship members because of rape, and the evidence shows that the committees have not disfellowshipped GN because of rape. The congregation has disfellowshipped GN because of a religious sin, that is related to the biblical concept “porneia.” This is a religious evaluation of the facts that were known by the elders at the time the decision was made.

11

Links to articles of letter of recomendation

by jojorabbit in

i am new to this forum.

i was a former jehovah's witness for many years.

i have a question maybe some of you can help me with.

Earnest

I remember that students who were baptised were referred to as "letters of recommendation" for those who studied with them, as JW_Researcher said. The term "letter of recommendation" certainly comes from 2 Corinthians 3:1-3, but I think the idea that you would be a person who would make it through the end times comes from 1 Corinthians 3:12-15 :

Now if anyone builds on the foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, or straw, each one’s work will be shown for what it is, for the day will show it up, because it will be revealed by means of fire, and the fire itself will prove what sort of work each one has built. If anyone’s work that he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward; if anyone’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss, but he himself will be saved; yet, if so, it will be as through fire.

28

Shocking Letter Reveals Jehovah's Witnesses True Beliefs! - YouTube 'xjw curious'

by Mace.Bean in

youtube's 'xjw curious,' pete corbeil, reads proselytizing letter written by a pimo jw who simply shares current watchtower teachings like no other jw.

use google drive link below to print your own copies of this letter.

(114) shocking letter reveals jehovah's witnesses true beliefs!

Earnest

Disillusioned JW : ... a letter which apparently addresses 'JUDGE' J. F. RUTHERFORD as "MR. COWARD"!

This seems most unlikely as he praises the pamphlet written by Rutherford. I would suggest the key is that he thanks "Mr Coward" for the [pamphlet] "you were kind enough to send me", that "thanks to your interview" he was prepared to read it with an open mind, and that he writes from the West Indies.

The Proclaimers book records that Evander J. Coward was sent to Panama by Russell in 1911 and then to the Caribbean islands including St. Lucia, Dominica, St. Kitts, Barbados, Grenada, and Trinidad. He obviously made an impression because when Rutherford was in prison, concerned about the WT Society, he recommended that Coward be appointed president! (Watchtower, October 2019).

16

Some notes on early Christianity - its evolution and "sacred text"

by Half banana in

in the scope of this site, it’s not possible to go too deeply into historical research in a single post but we can give the flavour of things formerly hidden from us when we were jws.. like most things, christianity evolved.. it has unseen roots but many visible branches, 40,000 is the often quoted number!

there never was a moment when it arrived fully formed in the middle of the first century.

its roots in folk mysteries were deliberately concealed by fourth and fifth century christian leaders.

Earnest

Disillusioned JW : The expression of "by divine providence" is the wording of the WT's NWT.

That will teach me to compare translations before quoting what I am familiar with. I did find that Young's Literal Translation (1898) reads similarly to the NWT - "the disciples also were divinely called first in Antioch Christians" - but certainly most translations make no reference to divinity in that passage.

I wondered why the NWT read differently and found a Question from Readers which discussed it. There it says :

The translation so reads because that is what the original Greek word seems to mean. The verb chrematízo in question occurs nine times and the noun chrematismós occurs once, and by referring to these occurrences and noting how the translation reads in each one, you will appreciate that these Greek words are always used in connection with what is from God and hence divine in that sense. See Matthew 2:12, 22; Luke 2:26; Acts 10:22; 11:26; Romans 7:3; Hebrews 8:5; 11:7; 12:25, and Romans 11:4.

In Vincent's Word Studies it says that chrematísai originally meant to transact business, to have dealings with; thence, in the course of business, to give audience to, to answer, from which comes its use to denote the responses of an oracle; a divine advice or warning. See Acts 10:22; and compare Matthew 2:12; Hebrews 11:7. Later, it acquires the meaning to bear a name; to be called, with the implication of a name used in the ordinary transactions and intercourse of men; the name under which one passes.