Posts by JosephMalik

Good to see you are on this net. Was nice meeting you and am looking forward to your further research that was discussed at our little gathering in Myrtle Beach.

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.

Leolaia, I never stated that I look only at the text itself. I also consider our roots, God’s intended purpose for us and the mechanisms put in place to accomplish this. Few religions understand salvation and the Kingdom and fewer still understand how it will function and why. Most have everyone going to heaven or continuing to exist in a non-human form when they die. Their minds are focused on a universe far, far away and that is what they envision when they see the word heaven or spirit in the texts. Their foundation is based upon such commentaries as they wrote most of them. But care must be taken as the meaning of many texts using such language is far different. And such commentaries cannot be trusted can they? Just look at the way you dismissed Barnes when I offered such comments to you. Poof, forget about his works. Are we to think that your authorities are superior to the ones I used? Why not get rid of them all then as none of them are scripture and non of them can be trusted. Dwelling on Jude like this is making a whole lot out of nothing. Why? Because that is not the point of Jude’s message. The reason he made that statement is to contrast such a Michael the archangel (important as he was based upon this designation of archangel) and the attitude he had to this devil (that still had authority from God to produce his seed) to the troublemakers Jude describes in the faith: Jude 4 “For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ”. It is anticipated that the outcome for such troublemakers will not be any better than the examples Jude provides in the texts that follow. Leolaia said: I have quite the opposite assessment. I see nothing in the context of the chapter that suggests that the author's citation of Psalm 104:4 has anything to do with the situation described above (the conflict between Paul and Torah-observant Jewish Christians), or that the terms in question are to be interpreted in just the manner indicated. This is why it was necessary to point it out. Few see this because it would be deemed sacrilegious to post such a view. But Jude knew better and not only mentioned them but detailed their position compared to others that lived in times past. They are described throughout Paul’s letters and in the book of Acts. This was the reason why Paul appointed Elders and had others he personally selected to appoint elders for him. Peter did not do this, or John or any other apostle did they? The Watchtower doctrine of a Governing Body is based upon such men (James and Jews in Jerusalem) so you know that they would not want anyone to see this either. And no one wants to think that even this effort would fail and the faith would become corrupt for so many years. As for the word spirit. I have explained it’s use many times and even simple words or expressions like “all,” “I am.” “world” “earth,” “kingdom of the heavens” “kingdom of God” and many others deserve more than a simple glance. Ancient use does not always equate with our modern definitions. Direct comparison cannot always be drawn. Our roots and God’s plan for the seed of the Woman should never have become so distorted. 20 “And Adam called his wife’s name Eve; because she was the mother of all living.” And such living will complete this plan for this day of rest. They will be humans, all of them immortal ones at that (consumers of this tree of life) since there was never a plan to make some non-human nor does such a non-human seed or Kind exist outside of our Lord who is scheduled to return here once again in the flesh. 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

Cygnus, This was a flowering tree known as a Bradford Pear. It was thick with branches and flowered full and early and finishes before the Azaleas come out. The Red Maples did fine but a dogwood nearby lost a nice branch and is leaning a bit. We are still in good shape. Anyone that wants the wood can help themselves. Thanks for the kind words and take care of those hands my friend.

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, Just when I thought this discussion was over here we go again. Well I think all this was covered well enough and I have been struggling for the last few days with cutting up and moving a large Pear tree that was blown down during the recent Hurricane here in Wilmington, NC. Contractors are busy with more heavily damaged neighborhoods and no one wants to touch it. But a brief comment or two may help. Leolaia said: However there are some significant problems with such an interpretation. One, as Narkissos pointed out earlier, is that v. 8, 14 refers to hoi aggeloi as "spirits" (pneumata) and "flames of fire (puros phloga), and while you offer an allegorizing interpretation ("serving in a zealous way"), the language is certainly more appropriate for "angels" rather than human "messengers" (cf. aggelos "angel" as pneuma in Acts 23:9, and the fiery nature of the seraphim in the OT, for instance). There are no significant problems with this interpretation. Hebrews was written at a much higher level than most NT texts and even most OT texts so such comparison with them will not work here. Hebrews as a book stands alone. Perhaps I could have used different words that would have been more suitable to you but there is no need. This interpretation of the word spirit for which there is no real definition other than wind is useless. There was an immense problem with such Jews, Christian ones like James and his following still keeping such Law, tradition and circumcision that Paul faced throughout his ministry. They even ganged up on Paul and wanted to kill him as he opposed them on this. Anyone who can grasp the emotion they had for Abraham or Moses can grasp such words as spirits, or flames of fire regarding them. Just because seraphim have similar qualities does not alter this does it? Pay attention to who is being discussed and why. Leolaia said: The second is that there would be an unmotivated shift in meaning of aggelos in ch. 2 (since v. 9 refers to the Son's brief status as "lower than the angels", v. 16 explicitly contrasted hoi aggeloi with "those descended from Abraham", etc.) There was a clear shift explicitly defined as I already mentioned. History was being discussed from both human and non-human perspectives in regard to the Son to show that His position and authority was not dependent upon such Law and His authority could not be challenged by such Hebrews. To understand a text we should stay with the text and its purpose and its impact upon those targeted by it. Running all over the Bible is not much help since the context of such other texts seldom approaches the context of the verse under discussion. Are we to think that such readers in times past would run to get another parchment in order to understand this one? Meanings of words such as angel, heaven, Lord, and God change with context. And words such as spirit, well that is a wild card in and of itself. But the Watchtower and others get away from it and that is how they can push their distorted views. For example you said and used the following as an argument: “What is more, these two statements are strongly reminiscent of the christological liturgies of Philippians 2, Colossians 1 and the parallel in Ephesians 1 which refer to heavenly beings over whom Jesus is set:” But such heavenly things (beings as you call them) were human. Just because some authorities you depend upon view them otherwise does not constitute proof. The fact is that they are human beings in authority or power over which our Lord also has Preeminence. So I prefer to show a verse and explain it and not just throw them around. Error is everywhere to be found in such works so I encourage personal study and careful examination so that those serving our Lord can determine such meaning for themselves. And now it is time to saw, cut and drag another portion of that tree to our pick up area in front of the house. 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

Too bad you stopped at 1:8 instead of going on (down to 2:9). I still wonder how you would have dealt with the rest (where the "angels," as "spirits," are opposed to "man," and Jesus is said to have been provisionally made inferior to them). Narkissos, Not every instance of aggelos should have been translated as angels. Sometimes messenger is much better. But where angels is more in context with the message then angels would be the best choice. Translators are all over the ballpark in dealing with this word. Take 2:9 then: What is the point being made? Can anyone see it? 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man. Can this be a reference to prophets such as Elijah. Could be. But on the other hand could this be a comparison between the immortality of such angels and this Jesus who gave up this immortality to become a sacrifice? Jesus used a similar comparison of immortality and angels regarding the recreation and Jews should have understood it at the time. Lets look around a little to see if we can pin this down. The verses in this area of Hebrews are on a different theme than the introduction. Notice: 6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: Humanity is being compared to non human kind. The reference makes this comparison point blank. This humanity would be wonderful if it were not for death itself. So the verse continues: 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. And what are such all things? Death for one. The very thing our Lord had to suffer in our behalf. So it can be a tough call as to how aggelos should be viewed. Each appearance must be considered separately and verses cannot be strung together carelessly. The meaning can toggle back and forth. I have discussed such verses the way I see them and that is all I can do. What any of us believes or teaches is our responsibility and we cannot put the blame for error on someone else. What I must face as a result is: Mt 12:37 For by thy words thou shalt be justified, and by thy words thou shalt be condemned. This is why I do not trust such ancient writers or commentaries. They are too inaccurate and biased and the stakes are too high.
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 mean, why Michael? Why emphasise one of the archangels?

Hellrider,

Because when Daniel wrote the human identity of this person was still secret. His non-human identity is clearly given by Daniel but no one was to know that it would apply to Jesus after such a Michael became human. That came later and now we know the rest of the story. So is this topic important? Can we identify false teachers by it. I think so but you can decide for yourself.

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, The theme is established right from the beginning. OT Jews are being discussed and their qualifications are compared to our Lord like this: 1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; 3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Not one of such prophets or ancestors qualified as savior. Only the Son does for the reasons given. That is the point being made in this introduction. Calling the fathers and prophets angels is correct because that is exactly what they were. They were messengers (angels same word) of the Law covenant and there is nothing wrong in designating them like this. But the Son, what about this human being that came along later? 4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. Who is they? Spirit Beings? No! the fathers and prophets under discussion. How can anyone make such a wild leap from such a simple word like messenger? Even translation cannot be blamed since we more enlightened than that. Now among them were powerful men such as Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon and such. But did God select one of them to be His Son like Adam was? No! So we learn: 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? No spirit beings here either. This is not the purpose of Hebrews. No qualified humans other than the Son. It was written for Jews mainly Christian Jews like James still observing the Law and depending on it for salvation. So now that they have learned who is who from out of all their history they are now informed of their responsibility to such a Son. 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. How? Because such angels (messengers) will be resurrected at such an event. Why because all authority has now been given to Him and He is serving as mediator to His Father here on earth. But were not such fathers and prophets loyal and zealous in their service to God? Yes! 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire. Yet this was only what was expected of them. They were not only ministers of the Law (spiritual sources of information) but they also served as in a zealous way some even as warriors for the faith. Wonderful credentials to be sure but: 8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. 9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows. Which fellows? The fathers and prophets under discussion. Do you get the idea? This Son inherited David's throne to rule in a coming Kingdom. He was anointed above such fellows like Abaham Moses and such. This was written for Jews, stubborn ones still holding on to the Law and tradition. They needed a kick in the pants and Hebrews does that for them. 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

Little Toe, I read Genesis. It says: 22 And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: 23 Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. Your arguments have no merit. Imagination is not truth. That is why I am always careful where I step. Qcmbr, Then he asked this question: “Unto which of the angels said he [God] at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee?” (Heb. 1:5; emphasis added). And of course the answer is immediate and obvious—none of them—none of the angels, not even Adam, or Michael, the chief of the angels. This passage was written about the Jews of times past calling them angels. Verse 8 was originally written about their Kings even calling them God. This subject of Michael has been covered pretty well except for this verse: Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. Not only does Michael stand up at such a time but Daniel will stand up just a few thousand days later: 13 But go thou thy way till the end be: for thou shalt rest, and stand in thy lot at the end of the days. Thus linking Michael with Christ and the resurrection is scriptural. Trinitarian theology cannot stand such thinking. They must oppose it at all cost. 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

So humans will always be humans, but they will also be a "new creation" that has immortality, albeit not in the sense of being changed into anything other than that which is human? Little Toe, Yes, as this is still according to its Kind as in Genesis. Little Toe: Is this your argument against humans taking on "heavenly bodies", as per Paul's comments to the Corinthians? Heavenly, one given by higher authority such as Christ. One other than the one we inherited from Adam. Spiritual bodies means basically the same thing. Paul’s comments were to some Corinthians that had some weird ideas regarding such future life even believing in astrology, that we become stars after we die. So his response was specifically tailored to them as well as the Jews among them. Their informational letter to him was thus refuted point for point. Little Toe: And Adam lost the opportunity for immortality, yes? Other than by conjecture, how do you arrive at this from the canon of 66 books (as evidently you ignore the rest)? Did Adam eat from the tree of life? Was it guarded to prevent access? Do we have to be hit on the head with a brick to realize the implication? If Brooklyn wants me, too bad for them. I have had to maneuver through a lot of stink to get here including such higher authorities. Not interested in going back J oseph