Posts by Earnest

72

20 Things I Don't Understand about Jehovah's Witnesses

by Vanderhoven7 in

i don’t understand how jehovah’s witnesses can rightly claim:.

that less than 150,000 faithful christians existed prior to the 20th century....when allegedly millions were martyred during the first 3 centuries of the common era alone.

unique ability to interpret scripture...when interpretation of prophecy has been 100% wrong for over 130 years.. .

Earnest

Vanderhoven7 : Why not between 1916 and 1943?

It is true they don't have a clue exactly when it happened, only that it must have been after the war in heaven, and before the great crowd was identified.

The terminus post quem of 1914 is because the war that broke out in heaven (Rev.12:7) did not include the holy ones, unlike the later battle with the nations (Rev.17:14), and so it is inferred the first resurrection had not yet occurred.

The terminus ad quem of 1935 is discussed in the same Watchtower article, para, 10,11. As the identity of the great crowd was revealed in 1935, the first resurrection must have already occurred (Rev. 7:13,14).

72

20 Things I Don't Understand about Jehovah's Witnesses

by Vanderhoven7 in

i don’t understand how jehovah’s witnesses can rightly claim:.

that less than 150,000 faithful christians existed prior to the 20th century....when allegedly millions were martyred during the first 3 centuries of the common era alone.

unique ability to interpret scripture...when interpretation of prophecy has been 100% wrong for over 130 years.. .

Earnest

Vanderhoven7 : Yes, the current teaching is that the Apostle Peter and the rest of the anointed who died were raised to heavenly life in the spring of 1918.

The current teaching is that the first resurrection began sometime between 1914 and 1935. Could it have been in the spring of 1918? The Watchtower of January 1, 2007, p.28, para.12 says :

That is an interesting possibility. Although this cannot be directly confirmed in the Bible, it is not out of harmony with other scriptures that indicate that the first resurrection got under way soon after Christ’s presence began.

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

Thanks for that, TD. Would you be willing to identify the reference works so I could consult them myself.

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

TD, you can always be relied on to produce a thoughtful post. There seem to be two possible categories for the dative of the εν phrases, either instrumental or associative. If it's instrumental then the Lord has the voice of the archangel, he calls out the commanding call and he descends with God's trumpet. If associative then he descends in association with these things.

The grammar does not rule out an instrumental interpretation. For example, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers says:

Probably, therefore, the “shout of command” is uttered by the “leader of the angels;” and the trump (called “the trump of God” because used for God’s purposes) is blown to summon the mustering hosts. In favour of supposing the Lord Himself to utter the cry, may be adduced John 5:25; but, on the other hand, it suits the dignity of the scene better to imagine the loud sound to come rather from one of the heralds of the great army.

So the choice naturally follows theological bias.

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.