Posts by Yadirf

Any person or persons or evil organizations that would remotely be content with the absence of this beautiful human being is not in any way worthy of any recognition whatsoever.

Such is according to YOUR opinion. And just what makes YOUR opinion so superior?

I might make it plain that there is beauty in ALL human beings, even the apostates that gather here on this forum. And another thing, this life is not all there is even for the apostates here, since they will receive a resurrection. However, a person who finds humor in a child flipping off an Organization that strives for holiness can't be much good as an associate.

Daniel 11:35 ... a KEY prophecy that must be fulfilled before the "time of the end" gets underway.

130

Micheal the ArcAngel/Jesus the man

by plmkrzy in

jw
friends

i understand that a lot believe that micheal and jesus are one in the same some believe that jehovah and jesus are one in the same some believe that one is the son of god yadda yadda yadda.. would some of you please address or post your reasons for believing that micheal the arc angel was not gods first creation and why he couldn't be the one sent to us to be born as a man and become our savyor?

why would he not have another name fitting his role as a man on earth?

he obviously wouldn't be living on earth as a child growing up as an angel.

Yadirf

pseudoxristos

That is an interesting link though. It looks like somebody drew pictures while reading the book of II Enoch 1:1-11:6.

The second book of Enoch, eh? That's funny, and thanks for the laugh (seriously). But I happen to be the one that put together the images there at that "link". And they have a scriptural basis, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered. Although I'm reasonably sensitive to the leadings of God's spirit I'm not a dreamer.

I don't think you are going to be able to prove the Michael/Jesus theory, which is never clearly stated in the Bible, with another theory that is even more obscure than the first.

It's all too reasonable for it to be a "theory", and I don't find it the least bit "obscure".

The Greek word 'arch' which means beginning, origin, ruler, has nothing to do with the english word 'arc' or it's Latin origin 'arcus' which means bow. The Greek word for bow is 'toxon'.

I don't believe that you can be that sure of things. Can you prove that the English word "arc" isn't associated with or possibly even derived from the Greek word "arch"? Do you think that it's by mere coincidence that they are spelled almost identical?

The reason that Jesus, although being an angel too, has his residence in the 4th heaven along with God is due to his unique status ("glory") as God's "only-begotten son." (John 1:14) Jesus assuredly is "Michael the [only] archangel." (Jude 9) As to why he is, a knowledge that the universe and the heavens are all spherical in shape helps to provide the clue necessary for understanding the prefix "arch". The clear implication comes from the fact that an arch (and the English spelling/translation is archangel) is something bowed or curved, the arch of our foot being a familiar example. But more to the point is the fact that the heavens have the shape of an arch. The boundary that divides the 3rd and 4th heavens is in the shape of an arch. Jesus resides above the arch of the angelic heaven -- thus, his being an "arch" angel describes his SUPERIOR position in relation to all other angels. Because of his father's wishes he is the second most important and powerful person in God's spherical, multi-heaven universe. You call attention to the fact that "arch" is a Greek word that suggests "ruler" etc., and I might add that it also means "head", but the fact remains that the Greek word is translated into English as "arch" and combined with the word "angel". What does arch mean in the English language? Not particularly "beginning" or "origin", right?

Yadirf

Daniel 11:35 ... a KEY prophecy that must be fulfilled before the "time of the end" gets underway.

130

Micheal the ArcAngel/Jesus the man

by plmkrzy in

jw
friends

i understand that a lot believe that micheal and jesus are one in the same some believe that jehovah and jesus are one in the same some believe that one is the son of god yadda yadda yadda.. would some of you please address or post your reasons for believing that micheal the arc angel was not gods first creation and why he couldn't be the one sent to us to be born as a man and become our savyor?

why would he not have another name fitting his role as a man on earth?

he obviously wouldn't be living on earth as a child growing up as an angel.

Yadirf

SaintSatan

You can't see the difference between a person's life itself and the life force that is responsible for its existence?

Yadirf

Daniel 11:35 ... a KEY prophecy that must be fulfilled before the "time of the end" gets underway.

23

Just in case the WTS is watching this site

by WildHorses in

jw
friends

hi, my name is shari ann pieske aguillon, i was a member of your cult.

i want my name off of your members list, or whatever it is you keep.

the last address you had on me was 7553 stoney hill rd wake forest nc, 27526. .

Yadirf

Lilacs

Has it ever occurred to you before that the WTS may very well be content that YOU no longer consider yourself to be a member of the Organization? Yes you do have a certain sweetness about yourself ... even many of the Philistines must have been the same, but that's not all that counts.

Your pretended onetime lover,
Yadirf

PS> You might as well give up on the idea that the WTS monitors this forum, because they don't give a rat's bottom what a bunch of irresponsibles think or say.

Daniel 11:35 ... a KEY prophecy that must be fulfilled before the "time of the end" gets underway.

130

Micheal the ArcAngel/Jesus the man

by plmkrzy in

jw
friends

i understand that a lot believe that micheal and jesus are one in the same some believe that jehovah and jesus are one in the same some believe that one is the son of god yadda yadda yadda.. would some of you please address or post your reasons for believing that micheal the arc angel was not gods first creation and why he couldn't be the one sent to us to be born as a man and become our savyor?

why would he not have another name fitting his role as a man on earth?

he obviously wouldn't be living on earth as a child growing up as an angel.

Yadirf

SaintSatan

Ok, i just saw that you had already responded to my earlier question, that's why i edited out my last post.
It was the personal life of Michael himself, his being, his very existence, which God transferred into the womb of Mary. Note: Life = existence = soul
Would this be his life force as defined in the insight book pg 246 pp3?

I haven't the time right now to confer with the publication you mention. No, I'm not referring to the "life force". I'm referring to Michael's life itself. I will say that the WTS has a very slight adjustment to make regarding the meaning of the word "soul". Also, the Society isn't fully correct in its definition of what Sheol/Hades is either. Not far off, but incorrect nonetheless. But I expect that such matters will get ironed out, according to Daniel 11:35.

The dead samuel story ... doesn't need any explanation. It speaks for itself, just as samuel did.

Samuel was DEAD! Dead people don't talk. Or shall we visit a mortuary together in order to prove this to YOU?

Yadirf

130

Micheal the ArcAngel/Jesus the man

by plmkrzy in

jw
friends

i understand that a lot believe that micheal and jesus are one in the same some believe that jehovah and jesus are one in the same some believe that one is the son of god yadda yadda yadda.. would some of you please address or post your reasons for believing that micheal the arc angel was not gods first creation and why he couldn't be the one sent to us to be born as a man and become our savyor?

why would he not have another name fitting his role as a man on earth?

he obviously wouldn't be living on earth as a child growing up as an angel.

Yadirf

pseudoxristos

At first look, in Rev 12:7 where Michael and his angels are mentioned. It appears that he is over the angels as the "Head Angel". My only guess at an explanation would be that he and other angels are "Archangels" in charge of their own angels, I don't think that this would conflict with the my point of there being more than one "Archangel". Most likely "Satan" was also an "Archangel" and had his own angels. It still appears that Michael and Jesus are seperate individuals.

One thing that I think will help you determine for yourself whether there is MORE than one archangel or not is to undertake an investigation of why exactly the word "angel" as it applies to Michael is prefixed with the word "arch". Why the word arch? I have done this, and have concluded that it fittingly expresses Michael's superior position in relation to all the other angel's of God's creation. Michael's "position" is literally higher up than all the other angels, in that he is privileged to live in the stately vicinity of God's heaven (the 4th and last heaven out/up from earth's perspective) ... which is UP ABOVE the arc (from which the word "arch" is derived), a division line, that separates God's heaven from the heaven all the other angels call home (the 3rd heaven).

As I pointed out earlier in this thread, you might be helped by taking a look at http://4heavens.homestead.com/21.html There you will see, via a diagram of God's spherical universe, the reason why Michael is an archangel, and of course the ONLY one of the sort. Of relevance to all this is that the apostle Paul made mention of having visited the "third heaven", having heard voices while there (angelic voices no doubt). -- 2 Corinthians 12:2-4.

Yadirf

130

Micheal the ArcAngel/Jesus the man

by plmkrzy in

jw
friends

i understand that a lot believe that micheal and jesus are one in the same some believe that jehovah and jesus are one in the same some believe that one is the son of god yadda yadda yadda.. would some of you please address or post your reasons for believing that micheal the arc angel was not gods first creation and why he couldn't be the one sent to us to be born as a man and become our savyor?

why would he not have another name fitting his role as a man on earth?

he obviously wouldn't be living on earth as a child growing up as an angel.

Yadirf

SaintSatan

Instead of trying to twist what the bible says, why don't you answer the question i asked you?

In what respect did I "twist what the bible says"? Could it be that what I did say was too clear for your complex mind to grasp.

This is my post that you make reference to:

What life was transferred? -- SaintSatan
It was the personal life of Michael himself, his being, his very existence, which God transferred into the womb of Mary. Note: Life = existence = soul, even as death = nonexistence. I really don't understand why people here find this so difficult to grasp. What's so hard to understand about the idea that God can, and did, take the life of Michael and implant it into the womb of a woman, which would become known as "Jesus"? Surely that's no more unbelievable than the reverse of that happening, is it? Did not Jesus, who had existed in human form for 33 years, return to being a spirit creature upon being resurrected? Was it not the very same person (life) that had come down from heaven that then returned to heaven? -- Yadirf

Yadirf

130

Micheal the ArcAngel/Jesus the man

by plmkrzy in

jw
friends

i understand that a lot believe that micheal and jesus are one in the same some believe that jehovah and jesus are one in the same some believe that one is the son of god yadda yadda yadda.. would some of you please address or post your reasons for believing that micheal the arc angel was not gods first creation and why he couldn't be the one sent to us to be born as a man and become our savyor?

why would he not have another name fitting his role as a man on earth?

he obviously wouldn't be living on earth as a child growing up as an angel.

Yadirf

aChristian(giggle)

You may also want to read 1 Samuel 28:7-20 without wearing JW glasses.

Have you ever tried reading that same account without your own particular type of "glasses" on?

There we find that after the death of Samuel, Saul consulted a spirit medium in order to seek Samuel's advise. This passage of scripture clearly indicates that Saul's attempt to contact Samuel in this way, following Samuel's death, was successful.

False! Take those glasses off.

Verse 15 tells us what the departed "Samuel said to Saul."

Well, yeah, but take those glasses off. In that case you might be able to perceive that it was all the doings of an angel God used.

Verse 16 also tells us what "Samuel said" at the time. Verse 20 tells us that, following their conversation, Saul was "filled with fear because of Samuel's words."

It is true that Saul really believed that the voice he heard was that of Samuel's ... which were words of condemnation (clue).

JWs say this must have been a demon impersonating Samuel. But this passage of scripture says nothing of the sort.

And neither does it say what you interpret it to mean.

Rather, it repeatedly tells us that "Samuel" himself was the one who was then speaking to Saul.

Have you ever heard of discernment? Rather shrewd of God to pull this off on ole unfaithful Saul, don't you think?

For reasons which are quite clear to anyone who reads this entire passage and its larger context, God allowed Saul to successfully communicate with Samuel's "soul" or "spirit" following Samuel's death. Saul could not have done so if no part of Samuel had survived his death.

You're as unaware of what God CAN do as was Saul. Think about it!

Yadirf

130

Micheal the ArcAngel/Jesus the man

by plmkrzy in

jw
friends

i understand that a lot believe that micheal and jesus are one in the same some believe that jehovah and jesus are one in the same some believe that one is the son of god yadda yadda yadda.. would some of you please address or post your reasons for believing that micheal the arc angel was not gods first creation and why he couldn't be the one sent to us to be born as a man and become our savyor?

why would he not have another name fitting his role as a man on earth?

he obviously wouldn't be living on earth as a child growing up as an angel.

Yadirf

JanH

Yadirf, it doesn't help that you call it a "gift". That is another metaphor.

THAT “gift” equates with existence, insofar as the sense I used the word.

But you indeed seem to argue that "life" is a thing, and then you run counter to offical JW doctrine. After all, we have a gift, we aren't a gift. If life is a gift, and life is soul, then we have a soul, we aren't a soul.

Breakdown
“We have a gift”,:Yes … we are privileged to exist (a “gift” from God).
“we aren’t a gift.”: True.
“If life is a gift”,: And for a certainty it is.
“and life is soul,”: And for a certainty it is.
“then we have a soul,”: No! We have soul, period, not "a soul". Soul = life.
“we aren’t a soul.”: No! We ARE souls, due to the fact that we embrace life.

Yadirf