Posts by Greenpalmtreestillmine

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.

Greenpalmtreestillmine

Hi Happy Guy,

Sabrina:
I find your reasoning far less sound in your last post, especially the third and second last points.
In your 3rd last point: Why would you want to substitute Michael for Jesus? Using your own logic the bible is as God wanted it to be; so why suggest a deletion Michael's name and replacement with Jesus in that example?
In your second last point: You say that Jesus would be powerful enough to defeat the Devil. Didn't you forget an important being here namely God? or are you now making a case to support the trinity doctrine?

My last post was in reply to Leolaia's assertion that Revelation 12 contradicts or voids the idea that Michael could be Jesus because both personages are mentioned there, the child Messiah and Michael. I simply tried to address her assertion by using a scripture by scripture explanation of how the Jesus/Michael belief can stand. I tried to show that one could read Revelation 12 and from the perspective of believing Michael is Jesus they would find no contradiction. Of course you are right there should be no substituting for the names. If the text says Jesus or Michael it should remain so. I was just trying to show that Revelation 12 does not bar the belief that Jesus is Michael.

On your second question, of course God can destroy Satan. I was speaking about those among God's creation, who among them would be the one to take the lead in heaven to put Satan out of heaven? To me it would be his son Jesus.

It must be noted that the names in the Bible signify much more than the individual but the individuals purpose or place or changed circumstances in life. The names Abram and Abraham for instance represent the same man but their meanings are different. Abraham's name changed because by God's will his circumstances changed. His wife's name was also changed. Jacob was given another name, Israel. Jesus himself changed Simon son of John's name to Peter, or Simon Peter. Names in the Bible are much more than just names. What the names mean is significant as the OT has shown us. It appears that in the Bible nothing is without purpose or meaning.

Jesus means: God Saves or Salavation of Yah. Michael means: Who is like God [?]

Now, did "God Saves" come to save anyone in heaven, did he die for anyone in heaven? No. His name Jesus refers to his saving of man not angel.

"Who is like God [?]" on the other hand, stands as someone who declares to all the spirit world his allegiance and strength towards God and from God.

I believe the Son of God, the firstborn of all creation, the one through whom all other things have been created, is both the standard bearer of his his Father in heaven (Michael) and the savior of man (Jesus). Just as he is according to Isaiah also called: Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

You asked if I supported the Trinity doctrine, no I do not.

I don't have the time right now to discuss your other questions but I will a little later today or if not then hopefully tomorrow.

Sabrina

24

Question on Rom 6:23

by _Atlas in

"for the wages sin pays is death, but the gift god gives is everlasting life?".

rom 6:23.

for years we been taught that we die because of sin and once you die you have paid your "debt" .

Greenpalmtreestillmine

Hi Atlas,

I by no means have all the answers. Neither do I wish to. (by the way I believe your post mistakenly made it seem I mentioned the ransom in my previous post, I did not.)

Getting back to point, the Apostle Paul indicated that the resurrection had not occurred yet though he wrote years after the death of the Christ. It then would seem that the time when Christ's sacrifice would be applied to the dead and cause them to live forever had not yet arrived. What are your thoughts on the logic of raising up someone who would live for thousands of years before the return of the Christ? Would they be happy do you think?

I'm no longer a JW by the way.

Sabrina

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.

Greenpalmtreestillmine

Hi Leolaia,

It is interesting how the attempt to harmonize different biblical texts about the Messiah and Michael, which creates a new doctrine about Jesus being Michael the Archangel, ignores other texts such as Revelation 12 which distinguishes between Michael and the Messiah child,

There is no contradiction.

Revelation 12: 1-9

	A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, and the moon under her feet, and on her head a crown of twelve stars;
	and she was with child; and she *cried out, being in labor and in pain to give birth. This may be the nation of Israel or the Jewish disciples who followed the Christ.
	Then another sign appeared in heaven: and behold, a great red dragon having seven heads and ten horns, and on his heads {were} seven diadems.
	And his tail *swept away a third of the stars of heaven and threw them to the earth. And the dragon stood before the woman who was about to give birth, so that when she gave birth he might devour her child. The dragon tries to devour the child at birth, at Christ's crucifixion possibly.
	And she gave birth to a son, a male {child,} who is to rule all the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up to God and to His throne. It should be noted that the scripture says the male child was caught up to God and to His throne. If this depicts the Christ then this verse is declaring his return to heaven as the enthroned Christ.
	Then the woman fled into the wilderness where she *had a place prepared by God, so that there she would be nourished for one thousand two hundred and sixty days. The woman is separated from her son. He is in the heavens with God, she is still on earth.
	And there was war in heaven, Michael and his angels waging war with the dragon. The dragon and his angels waged war, The resurrected Jesus could very well be able to fight with his angels against Satan.
	and they were not strong enough, and there was no longer a place found for them in heaven. "and they were not strong enough," who in the Bible could successfully overpower Satan and his angels? Jesus.
	And the great dragon was thrown down, the serpent of old who is called the devil and Satan, who deceives the whole world; he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. Jesus has successfully acted against the enemies of his Father in the heavens. ##############

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.

Greenpalmtreestillmine

Hi Ellderwho,

What would you say Adams created values where? Another words what was Adam "loaded" with, as far as seeing a bad choice vs. a good choice. And his abilty to discern?

If I believe God is a loving Father then I would also believe God equipped Adam with the necessary abilities to make an intelligent choice. But if I believed the Bible is a fairytale and God a monster then I would believe that God could not care less about Adam and Eve.

You choose.

Sabrina

24

Question on Rom 6:23

by _Atlas in

"for the wages sin pays is death, but the gift god gives is everlasting life?".

rom 6:23.

for years we been taught that we die because of sin and once you die you have paid your "debt" .

Greenpalmtreestillmine

Atlas,

But? Why? Didn?t they settled their debt already? Why did they have to die again?

Maybe it's because they were not resurrected under the covering of Christ's sacrifice. When they were resurrected they were brought back in the same physical and mental condition they had before their death. This then would be a condition which continued to miss the mark, so to speak, and therefore eventually caused physical death. It's really good imo that they did not continue living until our time. Imagine what it would have been like to be someone who never died yet lived among friends and family who would die continually before our eyes. Also as the Lazarus event showed, in the world as we know it there would always be those who for their own devious reasons would seek the death of one who could not die.

Sabrina

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.

Greenpalmtreestillmine

Hi Schizm,

The Bible says that Eve "saw that the tree was good for food" and that she "began taking of its fruit and eating it". How is it then that you don't believe the tree was literal?

I believe the two trees in the Garden of Eden symbolized the same two choices that mankind has before it today, eternal life or eternal death. Genesis is a treasure house of spiritual symbolism and imo will continue to provide beautiful spiritual fruits until the Christ himself returns.

Also, what would you say the significance is of the location of this tree, it having a particular place, namely "the middle of the garden"?

It would seem that the placement of the Tree in the middle of the garden meant that Adam and Eve would pass by it on a regular basis. In other words, their choosing of right and wrong, of eternal life or eternal death, was before them constantly.

Sabrina

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.

Greenpalmtreestillmine

Hi Euripides,

I 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."

I was not aware that the U.S. Judicial System uses the British King's Law to determine whether or not a particular law in the U.S.Constitution is right or wrong.

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?

Nothing is driving the discussion except what has always mattered in worship, the truth. Many have attempted to prove that Jesus is not Michael the Archangel. I presume they are doing so in order to promote truth. It would be wonderful if they then would also attempt to explain who Michael is and what place he may have before God since he is a very prominant angel who with his angels casts Satan out of heaven. Unfortunately the discussion rarely gets that far. Many of those who want to prove Jesus is not Michael are usually happy with just proving that one point and are not too interested in discussing just who this Michael might be in the grand Biblical scheme or what significance his name may have and so on. I wish they would though, it would lead to some very interesting discussions.

I believe Jesus is Michael and have attempted to show from the Bible that the possibility of that being so cannot be discounted.

Hi Leolaia,

You and I are working from different viewpoints. I believe the Bible is as it is because it serves a good purpose. I believe God has guided the gathering of the books he deemed necessary to serve that purpose. I believe the Bible is not so much a history book but a religious book written to instill faith and to allow man a very small glimpse into the mind and heart of God. I believe a good part of Genesis is prophetic allegory. I do not believe there was a literal tree of knowledge etc. I believe that if Jude took something from Enoch then that's fine because God allowed the book of Jude to be included in the canon for a reason. I believe each book is a piece in a beautiful religious vehicle. I believe the only problem with the Bible has been the religious men and women who have attempted to use it as a club to control others.

Suppose that a geneticist should through DNA testing discover that a young woman's beloved father was not genetically her father. If he should go and tell her this news what should she do? Leave home or refuse to ever speak again to her loving father? Is her father less of a father because they do not share the same DNA? Sure, she will be upset and have many questions but in all fairness if he has been a good father he is still a good father, her father. It may be that he did not tell his daughter because he never wanted her to know about her now deceased mother's adulterous affair many years ago. An affair which resulted in his daughter's conception. It may be that after that awful time in their marriage the father and mother grew to love one another again and to love their daughter very much.

For me the Bible is what it is and as such it does contain material that to our religious DNA may seem out of place but it is there and it is there for good reason. Rather than get upset with my Father about it I choose to try and understand why it's there and to what good purpose it can be used. If our religious ancestors fooled around sometimes then so be it, but if our Father allowed the inclusion of some of their religious adultery into the canon then it was for good reason. But he did not allow all their adultery to be included in the canon and that was for good reason too.

Sabrina

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.

Greenpalmtreestillmine

Hi Will Power,

I'm sorry but all these LITERAL analogies go on forever. Is the bible supposed to be taken this way? I highly doubt it. If it is then why is so much of it ignored? If parts are metaphors, allegories, abstracts etc, why the inability to think outside the box?

I'm not a Bible literalist by any means. But I do believe that the first step to understanding the Bible is to allow the words written to speak for themselves without some outside influence. If the text says a "well is full of water" then imo we should allow, within context, that the writer meant a well dug in the ground and the water is H2O. Why try to decipher if his use of "well" and "water" is consistent with how it's used in texts outside of the Bible? Now, after recognizing that he meant a well in the ground and H20 we can then make a judgement as to whether or not that particular text has a further symbolic meaning.

Biblical personages were not always aware that their writings or stories would have symbolic meanings for future generations. When Abraham's son Isaac told his sons the story of Hagar and Ishmael it is not likely he knew the later symbolic meaning that the Apostle Paul would attribute to those events. The only thing necessary in Isaac's time was the faithful transmission of the story. The later realization of its symbolic meaning would be understood when it was necessary. Isaac transmitted the concrete events, Paul, by God's spirit, helped us to understand whatever allegory, metaphors or abstracts are to be found in that story.

Concretness is vital to establishing a true allegory.

Sabrina

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.

Greenpalmtreestillmine

Hi Happy Guy,

Also: We already know that Daniel 10:13 says "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia opposed me twenty-one days. So Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, and I left him there with the prince of the kingdom of Persia..."
"One of" implies several. It is pluralized. Therefor the evidence points to several chief angels. Since arch=chief this line could also be written "Michael one of the Arch Angels" which would prove there are several since it is pluralized.

Angel and Prince are very different designations. One is a heavenly messenger the other a ruler. Just like the American Ambassador to Great Britain is one man yet one of many Americans so Michael can be one Archangel and yet also be one of several Princes.

Also Leolaia made some good comments: One problem ppl haven't mentioned yet is the fact that the term "archangel" doesn't occur at all in the OT. It didn't appear for the first time in the NT either. It gained a widespread usage in the intertestamental period, where it referred to the highest order of angels -- usually including Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and Uriel.

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. Sabrina

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.

Greenpalmtreestillmine

Hi Happy Guy,

We have already established that there are more than one archangel

How did we do that?

Sabrina