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 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

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,

This is what happens when Bible texts from completely different books are mixed and matched and combined into new doctrines that never existed in the original texts.

If a person believes that all the books in the Bible are there by God's direction then why should it seem strange that they should also believe that one book may be linked to another or provide help in understanding another?

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. It is fallacious to look only to a few references to the word "archangel" in the NT and ignoring its wider context -- especially since NT writers themselves adopted the term from intertestamental writings.

The books of the NT run from Matthew to Revelation. What God has put together we must respect. If though we do not believe God influenced the writing of the NT and the selecting of its books then of course we are under no obligation to believe they are any more important than any other 1st or 2nd century writing. In that case, then, all bets are off and all things written are considered fair game and in competition with the NT as books and writings of note and worth. I though do believe God influenced the writing and selecting of the NT books, so for me what the NT says is good enough. You added:

This argument is not linguistically sound. The prefix arkh- does not imply uniqueness per se. For instance, arkhiereis "chief priests" in Matthew 2:4, 20:18, 21:15 is in the plural and definitely does not imply that there was only one "chief priest".

I must assume that the translators know what they are doing when they translate singular and plural nouns and their verbs. If most Bible translations say Archangel, the singular, it should be taken as such. If they say "chief priests", the plural, that too should be understood as written. 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,

I like your screen name!

"One of the Chief Princes" is a plural form. If there were only one chief it would read "Michael the Chief Prince". If it only said "One of the Princes" there would be no doubt that it would imply one of many princes. By the same token it says "One of the Chief Princes" which implies there are several princes with a very key designation or significance.

I agree. This is why I wrote: "Just as King David was a chief prince or ruler over the Jews, his "son" Jesus was also a chief ruler over the Jews. Michael will always be regarded as one of the chief princes of the Jews because he was not their only prince or ruler. His ancestor David was also a chief ruler over them, as was Moses." In other words, Michael was a chief prince over the Jews since historically and religiously he was not their only one. Jesus was the last in the line of Kings not the only king of the Jews.

Jesus' title was much higher and greater than "Prince" or "Protector", Jesus was a "King":

Yet, Happy Guy, Isaiah 9:6 says: "For a child has been born for us, a son given to us; authority rests upon his shoulders; and he is named Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."

I think the evidence leans much more towards Jesus being Michael the Archangel than not. If Michael is not Jesus, then who is he? Who is this archangel who comes to Gabriel's assistance with such strength that Gabriel, stymied for 21 days, is then able to continue on his mission? Who is this archangel the great prince and protector of Daniel's people who arises or takes his stand in Daniel 12? Who is this archangel that along with his angels throws Satan himself out of heaven? I think it is reasonable to believe that since Jesus had a pre-human existence and since he was God's firstborn son and loved his Father so very much that he would be the one taking the lead in fighting against his Father's enemies in heaven.

Hi Euripides,

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.

I was referring back to Daniel 12 which I had just quoted previous to my question: "Later in chapter 12 of Daniel this same Michael is described in this way: ""At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book." Michael would be their deliverer in the time of the end but of course as you rightly said there have been many deliverers of the Jews, also many "princes" but none like Michael the Archangel. He was one of many princes but unparalleled as he was not only the son of David but also his Lord.

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.

Other categories of angels are spoken of in the plural but the title archangel appears only in reference to one angel. There is no mention of a group of archangels in assembly before God anywhere in the Bible but there is much mention of other named groups of angels standing before God. Also if there were more than one Archangel or Chief Angel (arch meaning chief) then the title would have no meaning. If a man is named Chief of Security it would be logical for others to conclude that he alone is chief of security rather than one of several chiefs.

So when the Bible gives Michael the title of Chief angel, I believe we can conclude that that is exactly what he is, the chief angel, the only chief angel.

***********There is though one other important feature concerning Michael the Archangel and Jesus Christ. In the Gospel of John the Christ is said to be the "Word" of God. The Logos. Jesus said at John 14:24, " Whoever does not love me does not keep my words; and the word that you hear is not mine, but is from the Father who sent me" The word translated as "word" is the same as that found at John 1:1. [Strong's # 3056] The Christ promulgated not his own word (or wisdom as some may prefer to call it) but that of his Father. When the Word spoke he spoke the words of his Father and in the Name of his Father.

The term archangel is a compound word meaning chief angel or if the actual meaning of the word angel is used the term then becomes: Chief Messenger. As the Logos, as the Word who spoke the word of his Father, Jesus is surely then God's Chief Messenger, God's Chief Angel, God's Archangel!

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

Jesus is Michael the Archangel.

Daniel 10:13 has been brought up as evidence that he is not: "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..."

These "princes" are rulers and Michael is a ruler over the Jews as evidenced by Gabriel calling Michael the prince of Daniels people: "There is no one with me who contends against these princes except Michael, your prince." Daniel 10: 21b

Later in chapter 12 of Daniel this same Michael is described in this way: ""At that time Michael, the great prince, the protector of your people shall arise. There shall be a time of anguish, such as has never occurred since nations first came into existence. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone who is found written in the book."

Who can be said to be one of the chief princes of the Jews and at the same time their deliverer? Jesus. As he himself asked, how can the Son of David be called Lord by his ancestor King David when he, the Son of David, is his descendant? David was a great ruler over Israel, as was Solomon and others. Yet this great ruler would call his "son" Lord. Yes, Jesus was the Son of David and he was his Lord. He was both a descendent in the kingly or princely rule and Lord over all the princes or rulers of Israel.

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!

Just as King David was a chief prince or ruler over the Jews, his "son" Jesus was also a chief ruler over the Jews. Michael will always be regarded as one of the chief princes of the Jews because he was not their only prince or ruler. His ancestor David was also a chief ruler over them, as was Moses.

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.

Michael the Archangel is Jesus Christ, one of the chief princes of the Jews, one of their rulers, the last in a line of kings. Jesus never removed the dignity and position of King David, as ruler, prince and king of his people.

Jesus was and is too beautiful and humble to do that, he is like his Father, beautiful in the extreme.

Sabrina

109

An Apology Regarding "The Voice"...

by AGuest in

to the household of god that is israel... and all those who go with them... may you have peace!.

i have been coming here for some time (although not in recent months, my sincere apologies) to share with you various truths that i have received from the truth.

for some of you, there has been little or no doubt as to the "authority" by which i share such things, the true source of such understandings: i have not refrained from confessing to you time and again that they are not mine, but are what has been given me by my lord, jaheshua mischajah, son and christ of the most holy one of israel, the god of abraham, isaac and jacob, whose name is jah or armies.

Greenpalmtreestillmine

AGuest,

May I sincerely ask you, how do you know the voice you hear is that of God? The Bible teaches that Satan can transform himself into an angel of light and it also says we should not go beyond the things that are written. The voice you hear has gone beyond the things that are written while it also claims to be a revealing light, a friend.

Does it speak consolingly to you? Does it make you feel close to God? Does it sometimes puzzle you or make you feel hurt? Has it ever caused you pain?

Jesus taught us to judge the tree by its fruit. What is the fruit of the voice you hear? Is it always good or is it a mix of good and painful?

I ask these questions because Satan is capable of fooling the best of God's servants by pretending to be God himself.

With love,

Sabrina

22

It's my opinion...

by teejay in

jw
friends

i know what i think about the watchtower society.

i know what i think about the current state of the republican party and its standard bearer george w. bush.

i know what i think about the ford motor company.

Greenpalmtreestillmine

Well....in my opinion.... my opinions change as I learn more about myself.

So far if I have an opinion based on generalizations then I know that opinion is most likely way off base. But if I have taken the time to look at both sides of an issue or problem and tried to see things from the perspectives of others then my opinion may be closer to the mark. For instance, I used to really get angry with Republicans and especially George Bush. But after spending some time looking at both sides I have come to feel that both political parties have something good to offer and both are lacking. As for President Bush I still will not vote for him but I do recognize that there are other fine members of the Republican party who would have made a much better President than Bush and so in part my dislike with the Republican party was based on my dislike for President Bush and his Administration and not totally on the Republican party itself.

It's true that our family, friends, culture, life style and so on, all influence our opinions. It is unavoidable but it can be mitigated by honestly considering opposing thoughts and opinions from the perspective of others, from their culture, their family, their friends, their life style etc.

That's what I've been trying to do (emphasis on the trying!) and I believe it will turn out for the better in my life, in my opinion.....I hope!

Sabrina