Posts by Vidqun

29

Jesus is not Michael the Archangel here is why

by paradisebeauty in

one of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.

here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.

Vidqun

It seems to me that the writer of the book of Daniel believed that Michael will rule as king:

Dan 12:1. Michael to stand up. “Michael will stand up.” Daniel often uses the phrase “to stand up” to mean standing up as king. In other parts of Daniel, as well as this prophecy, the term “stand up” means that the person assumes authority to rule as a king (cf. Dan. 8:22, 23; 11:2, 3, 4, 7, 20, 21). Hence, when Michael ‘stands up’ he, too, starts to rule as a king.

arise, appear, come on the scene, esp. in the book of Daniel, to arise, come on the scene: Dn 8:22, 8:22, 8:23, 11:2, 11:3, 11:4, 12:1, cf. 11:7, v. 20, v. 21. See BDBLex.

29

Jesus is not Michael the Archangel here is why

by paradisebeauty in

one of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.

here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.

Vidqun

Again, here I prefer evidence from the OT and NT. Micah 5:2 says he has an "origin" (see HALOT). Rev. 3:14 says he has had a "beginning." He is also referred as God's firstborn son, etc. (Col. 1:18; Hebr. 1:6). So I am not at all convinced that he was not an angel (literal meaning: "messenger") before. Jesus, as co-worker, is clearly subservient to his father the Creator (1 Cor. 15:25-28).

29

Jesus is not Michael the Archangel here is why

by paradisebeauty in

one of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.

here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.

Vidqun

Caleb, I'm really struggling with your logic here. As a Christian I believe in the OT and NT. Above is the totality of Biblical evidence. In addition, the Bible refers to specific ranks in heaven, e.g., angels, cherubs, seraphs, elders, etc. Can you see the dual function of Jesus and Michael? Can you see the overlap? The evidence is not clear cut at all.

Would you be able to call out with an archangel’s voice if you’re not an archangel (meaning “a member of the higher ranks in the celestial hierarchy, chief angel, archangel,” according to BDAG)? According to the book of Enoch, there are four angels of senior rank, and according to Tobit, seven. Aforementioned Biblical books refer to only one, Michael.

The majority of Christians do not want to equate Jesus with an angel because of Hebrews. Notice Hebrews 1:4 says: “he has become better than the angels…” But even if he did hold the rank of angel at one time, that has changed. He has received a promotion and now holds the rank of king. All the verses in Hebrews 1 point in this direction (future). As king he could be head or leader of the angels as Rev. 19 indicate? Michael seems to have the same function according to Rev. 12.

And really, does “with the sound of God’s trumpet,” equate him with God? How on earth do you come to that conclusion? I am sure as God’s designated king, he, that is God, would allow him to use his (God’s) trumpet on occasion. His voice might also sound like God's trumpet, still doesn't make him equal or the same as God.

Leaving quietly, yes, I follow what you are saying, but I interpret the evidence differently. As has been mentioned, that is my privelege and I cannot be disfellowshipped twice. Phew! Hurray!

29

Jesus is not Michael the Archangel here is why

by paradisebeauty in

one of the biggest missunderstanding and unbiblical teaching of the jw's is that jesus is michael the archangel.

here is what proffessor anthony buzzard has to say about this:.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puqzffyxno0.

Vidqun

This is not an open and shut case. Consider the evidence:

At the time of greatest tribulation ever the angel-prince Michael shall contend for Daniel’s people. Everyone that is found written in the book shall be saved, and the dead shall rise again, some to everlasting life, some to everlasting shame (Dan. 12:1–3; cf. Is. 9:6, 7; 25:7, 8 Sym; cf. Matt. 24:21, 29-31). He is the prince of Jehovah’s army (Dan. 8:11; cf. Josh. 5:13-15), the prince and protector of God’s people (Dan. 10:21; 12:1). The spirit person who bears the name Michael is referred to as “one of the chief princes,” “the great prince who has charge of your [Daniel’s] people” (Dan. 10:13, 21; 12:1).

Since Michael is a prince and protector of God’s people, he could be identified with the unnamed angel that God had sent ahead of the Israelites: “Here I am sending an angel ahead of you to keep you on the road and to bring you into the place that I have prepared. Watch yourself because of him and obey his voice. Do not behave rebelliously against him, for he will not pardon your transgression; because my name is within him” (Ex. 14:19; 23:20, 21; cf. 1 Cor. 10:1-4). This reminds one of the visions in Daniel’s prophecy. Kingship would be conferred on “someone like a son of man.” Michael would then stand up as king and champion of his people (cf. Dan. 7:13, 14; 10:13, 21; 12:1).

The final appearance of the name Michael in the Bible is in the book of Revelation. There he takes the lead in cleansing the heavens. Michael and his angels would oust the Devil and his angels from heaven: “And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled but it did not prevail” (Rev. 12:7, 8). Here we see Michael in action as God’s archangel. He, along with “his angels,” defeats Satan and casts him down to the earth (Rev. 12: 9, 10, 12; cf. 19:11-16). Not only does he take the lead in upholding Jehovah’s sovereignty, but he is also a destroyer of God’s enemies.

At 1 Thessalonians 4:16, the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as “the archangel’s call,” and Jude 9 identifies the archangel with Michael. Michael was the archangel, since no other archangel is mentioned in the Bible, nor does the Bible use “archangel” in the plural. “Archangel” means “Chief of the angels.” Among God’s spirit servants, only two names are associated with authority over angels: Michael and Jesus Christ (Matt. 16:27; 25:31; 2 Thes. 1:7; Rev. 19:11-21). Either their roles overlap or it is the same person.

21

What are JWs saying about the Royal Commission?

by LexIsFree in

i am wondering if there are any pro-jw blogs/sites that any of you visit and whether or not jws are aware of what is going on in australia.

also, what is there reaction to it?

(i may already know the answer to that last question.

Vidqun

A standard reply I have heard. This from my SiL in Australia, an uber-dub: "These are not real Witnesses. These are bad people that have infiltrated the congregations." A while back my mother quizzed the CO's wife about their involvement in the OSCE: Again the reply: "These are not real Witnesses but people using the good name of Jehovah's Witnesses for their own selfish purposes." Seems to me this reply comes from higher up, to answer queries from studies and interested ones.

82

Quality Thinking - Warning: Long Post Ahead

by Viviane in

recently, several threads have had some debate about logic, evidence, critical thinking and skepticism.

i wanted to write a post discussing those things, hopefully to clarify what those things are, why they are important and how to use those tools.

first, logic, at its core, is simply a method for how to reason validly, how to draw conclusions based on a premise.

Vidqun

But how to avoid confirmation bias? I notice it in religionists as well as non-religionists. Are we naturally inclined towards evidence that favor our beliefs, tendencies or hypotheses or has it been acquired over time? Something to do with pride, perhaps? Or has it to do with the way we think, and/or collect information?

24

Bible Students Convention ......New Understanding of 607!!

by umbertoecho in

july 23, 2015 at 3:35 pm.

i have just read this from berean pickets in the comment section.

it's quite a leap.

Vidqun

Actually there were three sieges and five deportations. First siege was 605 and the last deportation in 582 BCE. Jerusalem was destroyed during the final siege in 587/586 BCE. Here the Bible is in sync with the Babylonian Chronicles.

24

Bible Students Convention ......New Understanding of 607!!

by umbertoecho in

july 23, 2015 at 3:35 pm.

i have just read this from berean pickets in the comment section.

it's quite a leap.

Vidqun

Thanks, Lee. After a quick consideration of the chapter "The Seventy Years for Babylon," I am pleased to announce that I have reached a similar conclusion as he did. Poor Rolf Furuli, trying to prove the impossible. He should have stuck to critical, unbiased scholarship, and not the Society's hidden agenda.

24

Bible Students Convention ......New Understanding of 607!!

by umbertoecho in

july 23, 2015 at 3:35 pm.

i have just read this from berean pickets in the comment section.

it's quite a leap.

Vidqun

Noted, and new it's $150 per book, somewhat inflated I'd say.

24

Bible Students Convention ......New Understanding of 607!!

by umbertoecho in

july 23, 2015 at 3:35 pm.

i have just read this from berean pickets in the comment section.

it's quite a leap.

Vidqun

In order to free myself from WT Chronology I did some independent research. An article that helped me a lot was “The Chronology of the Last Days of Judah: Two Apparent Discrepancies.” Journal of Biblical Literature, 101 (1982), pp. 57–73, by A. R Green. Two important sources for the last days of Judah are the Bible and the Babylonian Chronicles. I looked for common ground between the two and would work towards a mediating solution. The results were surprising. Here's a summary of what I found:

The majority of scholars prefer secular chronology to Bible chronology. But is there really such a huge divide between the two? Are the differences not perhaps based on a misunderstanding, having to do with the “desolating of the land” and “serving the king of Babylon for seventy years” (Jer. 25:8, 9, 11)? Even the editor/redactor of the book of Daniel and Josephus would confuse Jeremiah’s words, assuming that the desolation of Jerusalem and surroundings would be 70 years in length. Theoretically, one should be able to add 70 years to Cyrus’ edict of 538 BCE, allowing one to arrive at 607 BCE (= 537 + 70). Daniel and his companions were deported during the third/fourth year of Jehoiakim, i.e., 605 BCE (Dan. 1:1; cf. 2 Kings 24:1, 2; Jer. 25:11; 46:2; 2 Chron. 36:23). This deportation would be followed by four major deportations (2 Kings 24:10-16; Jer. 52:28-30). Most scholars prefer 587/586 BCE as the date for the destruction of Jerusalem, in Nebuchadrezzar’s 18th year. Only after the last deportation, in Nebuchadrezzar’s 23rd year, would the land be truly desolate. However, should one connect the desolation of the land with seventy years of Babylonian rule? When one counts down 70 years from 605 BCE, one arrives at 535 BCE. According to Ezra (3:1) the Jews were already back in their homeland by 537 BCE, leaving us with a two year deficit. This can be made up by adding two years from Jehoiakim’s three year servitude, completing the full 70 year cycle (cf. 2 Kings 24:1, 2).

The Society has followed a 1st Century Jewish interpretation of the events, harping on the destruction of Jerusalem and the desolation of the land. But if one reads Jeremiah concerning the 70 years, one quickly realizes that he prophesied about their 70 year servitude to the Babylonians, not about 70 years of desolation. Only after the final deportation, in Nebuchadrezzar's 23rd year, would the land be truly desolate. Certainly this was not even close to 70 years.

I must admit, I haven't read "The Gentile Times Revisited," it's very expensive (over a hundred dollars on Amazon) but I'm sure he arrived at a similar conclusion. I don't want to bore you with the details, but if anyone is interested in some of the finer points, feel free to ask.