Posts by JosephMalik

84

Is Michael the Archangel really Jesus?

by twinkletoes in

for years i have believed what the wt says about michael the archangel really being another name for jesus christ.

but now i am reading lots of other non-witness books, i am beginning to question this teaching.. has anyone done any research on this particular subject.. your comments would be appreciated.

twink.

JosephMalik

JosephMalik, I don`t understand that at all. I understand that the Word created the world of mankind, not necessarily all the other things. Hellrider, Good so far. God, YHWH created the heavens and earth alone, not the Word or with any else’s help. Hellrider: I also understand that men (like the prophets, and men like that) will turn into angels/heavenly beings, and rule over the angels. No! This is where nearly every religion errs. Our Lord’s (immortal) human sacrifice was for human beings only and not to make non-human beings out of some of them. Words such as spirit, angels, heaven, immortal, are poorly understood and often mis-applied. Most have gotten away from such roots where we learned there is only a seed of the woman (Eve) and a seed of the serpent and nothing more. They put us on a non-human level with God for which there is no sacrifice offered. They just do not grasp how Adam lost the opportunity for human immortality and how our Lord attained it for us. Hellrider: But: Jesus is not one of these, is he? The Bible says he was sent to mankind, from his Father in heaven. He was originally a heavenly being, but then became man, then a heavenly being again. True, and as a result our Lord attained a dual nature unique to Him alone. He alone as a human attained to immortality and will make this available to us. 1Ti 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen. 2Ti 1:10 But is now made manifest by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who hath abolished death, and hath brought life and immortality to light through the gospel: He raised His own body and ascended with it. It is promised that He will return with this body of flesh once again to rule in His Kingdom. Hellrider: And if you claim that Michael isn`t the word, then this being that was sent to earth, wouldn`t be "His only begotten Son", that is, the first being God created, would it? I do not claim that Michael is not the Word. Michael is a name, the Word is a title or position of authority. The evidence is that they are the same Being in spite of all the off the wall and non-scriptural comments made about it. The Word became the only begotten (human) Son of God. I thought I mentioned this already and gave the reasoning. He is therefore the first (human) being God created. Someone ignored the context in such texts to come up with their theology long ago and now many like the Watchtower for example are stuck with it. Hellrider in another post: And He is the image of the invisible God, the first-born of all creation." (Colossians 1:15) Strange that no one notices that this is taking about the new creation, the creation that takes place with their resurrection to immortal human life. It is a creation totally dependent upon His blood. This is now the function of Christ regarding such creation. Col 1:14 In whom we have redemption through his blood, even the forgiveness of sins: 15 Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: 16 For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: As a consequence of this blood sacrifice all human creatures ever created by Him be they heavenly (government or ones in authority) earth (the ruled, humanity in general) visible (nearby or in the vicinity) invisible (far away and not visible as in Rome) thrones, dominions, principalities, powers (all such complex human arrangements) all (such human) things were created by him and for him (to restore to life as He chooses as a consequence of this blood sacrifice under discussion). He is the head over such things just as He is head of the Church described in the texts that follow. Joseph

84

Is Michael the Archangel really Jesus?

by twinkletoes in

for years i have believed what the wt says about michael the archangel really being another name for jesus christ.

but now i am reading lots of other non-witness books, i am beginning to question this teaching.. has anyone done any research on this particular subject.. your comments would be appreciated.

twink.

JosephMalik

I find it strange that IF Michael is "the word" that brings everything into existence, after himself being created by the supreme God, then WHY doesn`t the Bible make this clearer? Hellrider, Because it is not true. What was made clear by John is that the world, the world of mankind in all its complexity was brought into existence by the Word. How the Word or any other such non-human Being came into existence is not our concern and is not discussed in the texts. The word “all” or “all things” does not mean everything. See what is being discussed. No planets, no stars, no universe, no nothing like that. Just the world of mankind his own home. John 1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not. 11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not. 12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Life, that is what John is talking about. John 1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. Human beings "all" of them. You know Paul taught the same thing in Col 1:16 but words such as heaven and invisible trip most up. Joseph

11

Should I take the bread and the wine, asks my friend,

by twinkletoes in

two of our friends (ex jws) came out of the org, about three years ago.

they went to an evangelical church, and have now settled in the salvation army.

the sa, does not have the bread and wine ceremony/service, and the wife, (her husband believes that they should partake of the bread and wine) has been prayerfully searching to see if they should really take of the bread and wine.

JosephMalik

many leaders and members were women, and it would be unthinkable then for women to serve communion

Peaceful Pete,

Too bad! There is no such restriction in scripture. Just another example of how Paul's message was mis-interpreted and abused. There is no reason why they cannot do this privately in their own home. Such family homes were the faith in Paul's day and this is the reason why he not only taught publicly in the synagogues but went from such house to house.

Ac 2:46 And they, continuing daily with one accord in the temple, and breaking bread from house to house, did eat their meat with gladness and singleness of heart,
Ac 20:20 And how I kept back nothing that was profitable unto you, but have shewed you, and have taught you publickly, and from house to house,

Joseph

11

Should I take the bread and the wine, asks my friend,

by twinkletoes in

two of our friends (ex jws) came out of the org, about three years ago.

they went to an evangelical church, and have now settled in the salvation army.

the sa, does not have the bread and wine ceremony/service, and the wife, (her husband believes that they should partake of the bread and wine) has been prayerfully searching to see if they should really take of the bread and wine.

JosephMalik

Twinkletoes, Yes! After all our Lord expects it of his disciples. But the Watchtower scares their members off with Paul’s words. Is what Paul said a reason not to partake? Why did he say such things then? Here is what Paul was up against. 1Cor 11:18 For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that there be divisions among you; and I partly believe it. 19 For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you. 20 When ye come together therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lord’s supper. Motives, divisions heresies. He had the task of pointing them out and correcting them. That is why he looked for approved men to appoint as Elders. In our day such motives, divisions and heresies are out of control and there is no Paul to correct them. There are no such approved men to be made manifest. We do not even have a church as they did. We are on our own to sort such things out. We have only such texts to guide us today. Paul said: 11:27 Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord. 28 But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that cup. That’s all he asks. Go ahead and eat that bread and drink that cup. Simply make that effort to examine yourself and serve the faith (not some religious belief) and do not depend upon those who’s wrong motives are causing division and teach heresies. You are on your own. Be that person “which are approved.” Joseph

84

Is Michael the Archangel really Jesus?

by twinkletoes in

for years i have believed what the wt says about michael the archangel really being another name for jesus christ.

but now i am reading lots of other non-witness books, i am beginning to question this teaching.. has anyone done any research on this particular subject.. your comments would be appreciated.

twink.

JosephMalik

But his nature is immortal and incorruptible, given the "divine quality", and angels do not possess this.

Cygnus,

Yes this is another example of a Watchtower blunder that serves to conceal our Lord's message on the recreation. Angels are immortal naturally. They have been around for a long time and are still around. Even the definition of immortality is corrupt. It will take specific action against some such immortal beings to destroy them. This is why I urge everyone to examine the texts for themselves. Really pay attention to what is meant. By listening to the text being read on CD or tape a better grasp of it is possible. Overcome the notion that it is too complicated to grasp. That is what most religions want you to believe so that they can tell you what to think.

Joseph

84

Is Michael the Archangel really Jesus?

by twinkletoes in

for years i have believed what the wt says about michael the archangel really being another name for jesus christ.

but now i am reading lots of other non-witness books, i am beginning to question this teaching.. has anyone done any research on this particular subject.. your comments would be appreciated.

twink.

JosephMalik

Leolaia and Narkissos, Statements such as carried away have no relevance here. This is after all a discussion on Michel the archangel and the reader must decide for themselves which view is most accurate. Why is it that some think the scriptures are not enough? Narkissos: I take it that you mean this text? 30 And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush. 31 When Moses saw it, he wondered at the sight: and as he drew near to behold it, the voice of the Lord came unto him, 32 Saying, I am the God of thy fathers, the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob. Then Moses trembled, and durst not behold. Non-humans have appeared to man in the name of and in the capacity of God as shown here. It is not difficult to understand how such identities can get confused and/or fused together. Since terms such as God can also be shared the result is theories and doctrines of every description that must be sorted through. This information regarding angels is also available at: Ex 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed. Ex 3:3 And Moses said, I will now turn aside, and see this great sight, why the bush is not burnt. Ex 3:4 And when the LORD saw that he turned aside to see, God called unto him out of the midst of the bush, and said, Moses, Moses. And he said, Here am I. Not even use of the name of God shown here as LORD can be used to prove identity for such reasons. All such things can be and are delegated and the context can be subtle in such cases. That others used such thoughts or distorted them in their work is not surprising. To make matters worse the word “angels” was used by Jews as a sacred term for the prophets of old and resurrected Jews in particular. It was used of the Egyptians that left their first estate (Egypt) with Moses. It is used this way of such humans in Hebrews and Paul taught: 1Co 6:3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? how much more things that pertain to this life? Thus it is also used of such resurrected angels (OT human messengers of the covenant) that gain entry into the promised Kingdom to come. In fact our Lord taught that anyone of the recreation will be like the angels at such a time. Such use became confused or fused in literature over the years and we now have this opportunity to sort all this out. Calling the human Jesus an angel or even archangel is not a problem any more than calling such ancient prophets angels was. When we use the word Jesus or Christ, we must be conscious that a human being or someone with a human identity or nature is under discussion. The ascended Jesus did not lose such an identity simply because He is seated at the right hand of God. WT doctrine, the teaching of others and their impact on translation must all be viewed with a critical eye. Joseph

84

Is Michael the Archangel really Jesus?

by twinkletoes in

for years i have believed what the wt says about michael the archangel really being another name for jesus christ.

but now i am reading lots of other non-witness books, i am beginning to question this teaching.. has anyone done any research on this particular subject.. your comments would be appreciated.

twink.

JosephMalik

Leolaia,

It does not matter. Each point of view was offered. It is now up to the readers to decide. One should be careful when stringing similar sounding texts together however. Our Lord's angels can also refer to those human messengers (angels) chosen to rule with him. Not everything is a simple as it sounds. This subject can get all mixed up when strung together like this.

Joseph

84

Is Michael the Archangel really Jesus?

by twinkletoes in

for years i have believed what the wt says about michael the archangel really being another name for jesus christ.

but now i am reading lots of other non-witness books, i am beginning to question this teaching.. has anyone done any research on this particular subject.. your comments would be appreciated.

twink.

JosephMalik

What you separate into "scripture" and "tradition" I only regard as "ancient texts". Why bother to look into "tradition"? Because Jewish tradition upstream of the NT shows where the NT notions came from and what they meant to contemporary readers. Because Christian tradition downstream of the NT shows how the NT notions were understood by early receptors. To me this helps a lot. Narkissos, Jewish use of terms can be extremely helpful in understanding texts. But one cannot expect Jewish tradition especially that taken from sources that reject Christ to be of much help. When one considers the struggle that Paul had with such Jewish sources, it is easy to see why they are not helpful. Even during such early days of the Christian Faith, error was running rampant and took many years along with the selective appointment of Elders to get under control. Narkissos said: Where does "scripture" positively say that Jesus-Christ is an angel? Such a positive statement, one that would be acceptable to you is not required. That our Lord was at one time a non-human and our creator is proof enough. This discussion provided enough evidence without going into symbolic texts. Yet such projections of thought are not uncommon. Gal 4:14 And my temptation which was in my flesh ye despised not, nor rejected; but received me as an angel of God, even as Christ Jesus. This acceptance of Paul even as Christ Jesus is such a projection of thought and quite remarkable. The side reference to angel can also be applied to such a Christ. The word angel is actually used more in the sense of human messenger but making such leaps is not out of the question. Denying them, now that is where proof is also needed. Why is it that you reject the idea? Do you have hard evidence against such a teaching? Joseph

84

Is Michael the Archangel really Jesus?

by twinkletoes in

for years i have believed what the wt says about michael the archangel really being another name for jesus christ.

but now i am reading lots of other non-witness books, i am beginning to question this teaching.. has anyone done any research on this particular subject.. your comments would be appreciated.

twink.

JosephMalik

Narkissos,

It looks like Trinitarian theology had a lot to do with forming the reasoning offered. Some will teach anything to get away from the idea that our Lord was an angel, even an important one called archangel. They also avoid implying he was a created being. Then they drown the subject with a lot of words in a flood of information so that the context of such texts gets muddled along the way. That is why I avoid quoting from such sources as much as possible.

Here is an example of what results: the one Logos or "Son of God" which is also described as the firstborn and eldest of angels

Nowhere do we find in scripture the teaching that the Logos was the eldest of the angels. And the reference Son of God is used of the Human Jesus in much the same way that it was used of the Human Adam. Angels is also used in scripture of human beings such as in Hebrews but many still think they are spirits due to comments made about such verses.

This is also true of the “firstborn of all creation or creatures.” It is a reference to all human creation not the universe. How and when such angels came into existence was not our concern and is not detailed in scripture. Then we have: Joh 1:14 “And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth”. Again this is a reference to the human Word that was made flesh and not the Word prior to such a time. This Word became the only begotten human of the Father personally since it was the Word that created Adam and the human race literally in such a beginning.

What then does this mean to us? The fact that we do not know who literally created the animals for example. John only deals with the world, the human race in his Gospel. There is so much that we take for granted that is the result of copious comments and not texts. In such cases I do not simply offer such testimony but also include my position so that everyone knows where I stand on such matters. And this also means that there is plenty of room for us all to re-examine the texts and get their true and intended meaning as we are not getting this from such traditional sources.

Joseph

84

Is Michael the Archangel really Jesus?

by twinkletoes in

for years i have believed what the wt says about michael the archangel really being another name for jesus christ.

but now i am reading lots of other non-witness books, i am beginning to question this teaching.. has anyone done any research on this particular subject.. your comments would be appreciated.

twink.

JosephMalik

BTW, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 does not indicate that the Lord has the voice of an archangel, it says that the coming of Christ will occur during a "shout of an archangel" and "trumpet call". Leolaia, While this is taught by some it does not mean that our Lord’s voice is not also included in this voice described by Paul. This is because a multitude of other voices are implied and included here and for this reason some say: Barnes notes: with a shout; the word here used is observed by many to signify such a noise or shout as is made either by mariners, when they pull and row together; and shout to direct and encourage one another; or to an army with the general at the head of it, when about to undertake some considerable action, to enter on a battle, and make the onset; Christ will now appear as the King of kings, and Lord of lords, as the Judge of the whole earth, attended with the host, or armies of heaven, and the shout of a king will be among them: perhaps the same is intended, as by the voice of a great multitude, as the voice of many waters, and of mighty thunderings upon the coming of Christ, the destruction of antichrist, and the marriage of the Lamb, in #Re 19:1,6,7,14,15. The Vulgate Latin, Syriac, and Ethiopic versions render it, "in," or "with command"; and the Arabic version, "with his own government," or "authority"; that is, he shall descend, either by the command of his Father, as man and Mediator, having authority from him, as the son of man, to execute judgment; or with his commanding power and authority over the mighty angels, that shall descend with him: it follows, with the voice of the archangel; so Michael is called, in #Jude 1:9 with which compare #Re 12:7 and who perhaps is no other than Christ himself, who is the head of all principality and power; and the sense be, that Christ shall descend from heaven with a voice, or shall then utter such a voice, as will show him to be the archangel; or as the Syriac version renders it, "the head," or "prince of angels"; and which whether, it will be an articulate voice, such as was expressed at the grave of Lazarus; or a violent clap of thunder, which is the voice of God; or the exertion of the power of Christ, is not certain: it is added, [End Barnes] After all the verse focuses contextually on our Lord himself and His function not on such others present for it says: 16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first: Joseph