Posts by peacefulpete

51

Searching

by Striker in

jude 1:9 (kjv) yet michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the lord rebuke thee.. matthew 4:10 (kjv) then saith jesus unto him, get thee hence, satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.

.

.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....

peacefulpete

Remember, Revelation is a collection of Jewish apocalyptic works redacted and reframed by a Christian. This was done in other Jewish apocalyptic works as well, so this is not unusual. This explains the nonlinear and repetitive narrative. There are not two battles nor are all the nations gathered for war and defeated twice, these are stand-alone scenes using slightly different imagery, in one the Logos is a Lamb in another he is a lion, in another a mighty angel, in another Michael. (reading a single artificially divided chapter sometimes has the Logos shift personas multiple times). The Christian reuse of this material, (with segue and framing interpolations) reveals that he understood his Jesus Christ as the primary actor in all of them. This Christ is the also the Alpha and Omega and is equaled to the God Almighty, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Dan 2:47) in eternal glory and power, because he is the Logos/Wisdom/Son of God hence actually a projection of God.

51

Searching

by Striker in

jude 1:9 (kjv) yet michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the lord rebuke thee.. matthew 4:10 (kjv) then saith jesus unto him, get thee hence, satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.

.

.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....

peacefulpete

To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the ruling power forever and ever.”

So who receives the "blessing and the honor and the glory and the ruling power forever and ever."?

Are they not described collectively as if the lamb is an emanation of God?

121

PRESIDENTIAL predictions...let the prognosticators have their say!

by Terry in

jw
friends

my only prowess in making predictions stems from my 77-years of life in the united statesgrowing up under president truman, eisenhower, kennedy, nixon, .....etc.

etc.i was a widdle kid sitting in front of a tiny black and white tv set when the very first broadcastsof political conventions, deal-making, debates (nixon vs kennedy), assassinations (jfk, rfk, martin luther king, etc.

) i grew up with duck and cover under my elementary schooldesk, the cold war, the iron curtain, the korean war, the vietnam war and i went to federal prisonas a jw conscientious objector while hippies, flower children, political activists protested and universitystudents were fired up on by troops.i grew up reading newspapers (2 of them).

peacefulpete

Harris will win but again the Trump camp will test the system by threats of violence and captured judicial oversight. Years of embarrassing shame on the American image will further erode the democratic ideal. If Trump does win, Harris will concede, and Biden will peacefully transfer power. The rest of the first world will shake their heads in disbelief and mock American credulity and embrace of hate. The markets will become unstable. Interest rates will rise as will inflation. We will get through it.

51

Searching

by Striker in

jude 1:9 (kjv) yet michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the lord rebuke thee.. matthew 4:10 (kjv) then saith jesus unto him, get thee hence, satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.

.

.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....

peacefulpete

If Jehovah is the 'son of man', who is the 'Ancient of Days/that One'?

The God Almighty, Most High. There was a genuine difference between camps of scribes. Some saw Yahweh as an emanation/agent/son of El Most High while some like 2nd Isaiah and a couple Psalm writers combined the two. These two ideas appear to have been in tension in the 5th century forward. It seems an idea only recently becoming popularized. Most research assumes the Most High's delegation of Israel to Yahweh in Deut 32 reflects a very early form that somehow escaped the editors. It might rather actually reflect a later theological development (or possibly preserved with that new interpretation), where the Most High is far too transcendent to interact directly with material things and He uses the agency of a Logos/Son.

It is important to realize that not every writer shared this concept in identical ways. IOW, the writer describing Logos may not have had in mind all the other names/terms used by other writers in different contexts. Each pericope was meant to be understood in its own context. I'm not therefore sure we should assume the writer of Dan 7 understood Yahweh as identical with the SofM/Michael.

It gets messy. Daniel is a composite work made up of centuries old stories combined with apocalyptic elements from the Maccabean period. It also went through some editing in the years following. Notice in chapt 9, the only section that mentions 'Yahweh', and how even in this section the use is inconsistent. It's difficult to understand the motives but it would seem some editing is involved. IOW, did the writer of the apocalyptic sections (or even just chapt 9) use the tetragrammaton (my/our God YHWH) of not? If so, did he differentiate him from the 'Most High' the expression in Chapts 3,4,5 or the 'God of heaven', 'Lord of Kings' and 'God of Gods' in chapt 2 or 'Ancient of Days' in 7?

51

Searching

by Striker in

jude 1:9 (kjv) yet michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the lord rebuke thee.. matthew 4:10 (kjv) then saith jesus unto him, get thee hence, satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.

.

.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....

peacefulpete

Pete: whomever he may be thinking of, we can only work on what is written. I am not struggling as you say, I believe it's very clear. Jesus and Michael are not the same, but thanks for that info.

Jesus, (a name likely drawn from that same Zechariah section aka branch) is a separate figure in some contexts. Much like the Logos was separate from Wisdom in some late Jewish works but used pretty interchangeably in others. Similarly in Daniel (in its final redaction) an editor equates the Son of Man with Michael. These names were plastic/somewhat loose in usage. Philo sees the Logos as basically the sum of other emanations. The earliest Christians apparently felt similar. Jesus is called Son of Man, Son of God, Wisdom and Logos as well as other terms associated with the second power concept. 'Michael' in Revelation (which was likely a collection of Jewish works before being redacted into a Christian one) is depicted again as the warrior great prince/angel/Son of Man. It seems likely that the Christian responsible for the redaction of this Jewish symbolism assumed readers would understand the 'Michael' figure as another facet/face of the 'Lamb', the Lion, the 'Christ' 'Son of Man' and 'mighty Angel' in a second power warrior role. Yes, that might be surprising but I'm of the mind that the various 'strong angels' in Revelation are likewise symbols of this same concept. Note that the 'strong angel' is described in the typical theophanic manner as Yahweh (Eze 1:26-28) and Jesus (Matt 17:2) are.

Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven. He was robed in a cloud, with a rainbow above his head; his face was like the sun, and his legs were like fiery pillars. 2 He was holding a little scroll, which lay open in his hand. He planted his right foot on the sea and his left foot on the land, 3 and he gave a loud shout like the roar of a lion. When he shouted, the voices of the seven thunders spoke.

51

Searching

by Striker in

jude 1:9 (kjv) yet michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the lord rebuke thee.. matthew 4:10 (kjv) then saith jesus unto him, get thee hence, satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.

.

.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....

peacefulpete

If Jude understood Michael and Jesus were the same, would he not have referenced that important point?

According to Origen, the writer of Jude was quoting the Assumption of Moses (1rstcentury CE). We are missing about 1/3 of that so it's possible it was within that section. Others believe he was referring to a composition that included the Assumption and the Apocalypse of Moses (wherein Michael is driving God Most High's cherub-pulled chariot carrying the bodies of Adam and Abel to be buried in Eden which has been relocated to the 3rd heaven). This gives Michael the role that would explain the Jude passage where Satan demands Michael reveal the location of Moses' body.

The writer of Jude may been in fact combining that tradition with the Zechariah scene above. Many regarded that pericope as proof of a second power, the angel of the Lord, that acts and speaks as the Lord and seems to be acting on behalf of the 'Almighty' to war with enemies. In short there was a diversity of terms and roles assigned for emanations of God. Some of it appears by design others may have been artifacts of translating.

It would be far too much to expect every writer to share identical imagery and conceptualization of the Great Prince Michael/Angel of the Lord/Son/Logos. You are struggling because you are mistaking these allegorical stories as literal and frustrated that they are not consistent in detail.

51

Searching

by Striker in

jude 1:9 (kjv) yet michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the lord rebuke thee.. matthew 4:10 (kjv) then saith jesus unto him, get thee hence, satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.

.

.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....

peacefulpete

3 Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan[a] standing at his right side to accuse him. 2 The Lord said to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! ...

This 'angel' (conflated with Yahweh) speaks rebuke in the name of Yahweh.

Confusing? It all returns to the second power/great angel concept that evolved into the Christ of Christianity.

Michael and Christ: Michael Tradition and Angel Christology in Early Christianity: Hannah, Darrell D.: 9781610971539: Amazon.com: Books

14

Bethelites dressing up for Halloween

by neat blue dog in

think about it: they had to go out and buy halloween paraphernalia, then apply makeup & costumes to dress the 'brothers & sisters' up as vampires, witches, mummies etc.

and you know they were probably joking around the whole time.

what a bunch of hypocrites, the last gen gb would be turning in their graves to see such a photoshoot at the 'house of god' 😆.

peacefulpete

Desirous...add, Nebuchadnezzar the man with eagle feathers, claws and heart of a beast, Giants with 6 fingers, flying serpents/dragons, (seraphim), and 4 headed winged chimeras, the dead en mass walking out of the cemeteries and entering towns (with rotten clothes or nude I suppose), the witch of Endor and the ghost of Samual, demon possession with superhuman strength to break chains, a blood covered samson with a jawbone in his hand.....the Bible is filled with good Halloween costume ideas.

164

How did JWs arrive at a clearer understanding of what the Bible teaches than other Christian denominations?

by slimboyfat in

for jws who believe that jehovah had a hand in reviving the truth in the nineteenth century this is enough explanation for how jws managed to achieve a closer approximation to early christian beliefs and practices than other groups.

but is there an explanation for this phenomenon that doesn’t rely on supernatural intervention?

new testament scholar james dunn explains the difficulty of interpreting the biblical texts in this way:.

peacefulpete

When we speak of 'canon' we must ask who's canon? Surely everyone knows each branch of Christianity had its own collection of writings and this in a diminished way continues today. All of the discussion above is focused upon a Proto-orthodox branch that dominated in later centuries. The Nag Hamadi library should illustrate that point. Christianity went through a bottleneck; all earlier forms of Christianity were lost under the domination of the 'Catholic' form. All branches today spring from it.

Many have elevated the Muratorian list as just the proof they needed to suppose an early consensus. It's not sober objectivity that leads to that conclusion. The Muratorian fragment list was redacted in the 8th century, when previous version/s were written is unknown. Some speculate the late second while others see very good reasons (it's use as a prologue, it's Latin reflects an earlier Latin vorlage not Greek, it's lack of mention by earlier heresiologists and writers, etc.) to date it to the 4th.

see: The Muratorian Fragment: Text, Translation and Commentary” (Mohr Siebeck: 2022)

The fragment itself demonstrates that hundreds of years later than the supposed date of Jesus, even the proto-orthodox branches of the faith had not yet agreed upon what writings were approved.

9

WATCHTOWER IS WATERING DOWN BEDROOM SURVEILLANCE?

by raymond frantz in

https://youtu.be/hwzly3fnpdo?si=0p8zd0_9a-lwtb_9.

the study article 2 from the january 2025 watchtower study edition titled “husbands, honor your wife” represents a marked shift from the earlier, stricter watchtower stance on marital intimacy among jehovah’s witnesses.

this article’s language feels more relaxed, with paragraph 17 and its footnote stating, “the bible does not provide details as to what sexual practices between a husband and a wife should be considered clean or unclean.

peacefulpete

All of us need to be aware of the human tendency to want to impose our personal views upon others. It becomes harder when entrusted with power.