- This topic is empty.
- Posts
You are correct that the term archangel is only used to describe Michael in our western protestant canon. However, all the apocryphal book describe mulitple archangels. ALL OF THEM! The common knowledge of Christ's time was of multiple archangels existing. Micheal, Gabriel, Uriel and Raphael were all considered archangels.
Granted they are not in our western protestant canon. But they are in every other canon in existence. They were in the KJV initially.
Even if Jesus was Michael the Archangel, surely you must admit that without the JW's claming guidance by a prophet how can they dogmatically proclaim Michael and Jesus to be the very same being based off of the limited and circumstancial evidence they provide. They would have to say instead. He could be Michael or an archangel like Michael.
Where Michael is called Archangel in Jude is a reference from the assumption of moses, an apocryphal book. Also Enoch, an aprocryphal book is mentioned only verses later.
The very verse JW's use is a direct reference from an apocryphal book.
Apocryphal books declare muliple archangels.
I wish I could convince people to purchase the book of enoch and study it. They would see that it can't possibly not have been quoted and given approval by the apostles.
True Mercy, and it is on this site along with other treasures.
I think the same beings are called sons, gods, princes and possibly elders in Revelation.Quote It is not written that Jesus is an angel
It is not written that Jesus is an archangel
It is not written that Jesus is Michael.That should be enough for us.
Your three statements above are true.
Here are three other true statements:
1. It is not written that Jesus isn't an angel. (a word meaning “messenger.” In fact, He is without question, WITHOUT QUESTION God's chief messenger, God's Word!)
2. It is not written that Jesus isn't THE archangel. (So stop asserting that this is impossible. What you assert can not be proven by scripture.)
3. Jesus and Michael seem to have some commonalities, which raise questions that are hard to answer if they aren't the same person. (The Bible speaks of both Michael and “his angels” and Jesus and “his angels.” They are both described as a leader of an army of faithful angels. Are there two armies of angels in heaven?)Hi Mercy, so all the apocryphal books, those of “questionable authenticity, or spurious” have multiple archangels.
Unfortunately, I can't build my faith on these. There have also been several thousand books written on angels in the past few years. It seems to have dropped off, but about 3-6 years ago, there was tremendous fascination with angels for some reason. I don't build my faith on these books either. I use God's Word.Quote The common knowledge of Christ's time was of multiple archangels existing. Micheal, Gabriel, Uriel and Raphael were all considered archangels.
If that were true, I wish God's Word would have stated it. It doesn't.Quote Even if Jesus was Michael the Archangel, surely you must admit that without the JW's claming guidance by a prophet how can they dogmatically proclaim Michael and Jesus to be the very same being based off of the limited and circumstancial evidence they provide. They would have to say instead. He could be Michael or an archangel like Michael.
This argument I've heard many times. That we should simply say he “could be” Michael the Archangel. I can see how that would have saved me having many discussions on this. Somehow, this seems to be the number one thing we have wrong, as it's often the first thing mentioned. Yet, we do have several scriptural reasons for believing this.
You and Nick say: “There are many archangels.” Yet, you can provide even less Biblical proof of this than I can that Jesus is Michael. At least I have Biblical reasoning behind what I believe. You have books of questionable authenticity.
I really do understand why some would have trouble seeing that Jesus could be Michael the archangel. You may have all these other ideas of Jesus or archangels that you got from tv or non-biblical sources. This prevents a lot of people from even considering the reasons behind why we believe as we do.Quote The very verse JW's use is a direct reference from an apocryphal book.
There has been much written on this. We don't know that. We don't know he took it from the book of Enoch, or whether he took it from some other historical record and later (when Enoch was produced) they inserted that to make it seem authentic. There are other possibilities. But what we do know is that THAT SCRIPTURE in Jude is a part of the Bible. So I don't question that verse; just as you don't seem to question the apocraphyl books, the books that are “questionable.”Quote I wish I could convince people to purchase the book of enoch and study it. Quote True Mercy, and it is on this site along with other treasures.
I read about half of it and skimmed the rest from this website. It seemed nothing like the Bible, at all. It speaks of things the Bible doesn't speak of at all–and it spends a lot of time doing so. It seems nothing like the Bible to me.
I spent a little time on the Enoch threads asking people if they could defend any of the criticisms against that book. I asked that question three times. Only silence was the reply. For some reason, people “love” that book, but don't want to defend it.david
Hi david,
Do you wish us to state a list of things that scripture does not say that
Jesus is
or is not?
It may take a while as the list will be long
and surely to make statements from the basis of what is NOT said
is to use speculation and not to stand on the Word of God.Are you sure this is what he wants us to do, to speculate and then look for supportive scriptures?
Quote Do you wish us to state a list of things that scripture does not say that
Jesus is
or is not?
No, I wish for you to stop dogmatically saying that it's impossible that Jesus could be described as an angel, when both Jesus' actions, and the meaning of that term and scripture seem to indicate otherwise.
(of course, a human “messenger” would not be termed an angel, because the angels are spirit creatures, as Jesus is.) But, being that Jesus, the Son of God is a spirit creature, as the angels are, and being that he was God's chief messenger (or “arch” “angel”), I don't find it hard to make the leap that he could be considered one of the sons of God, an angel, albeit, without question, the chief of or chief angel.
What I am saying is that you accuse me of saying something that isn't explicitely stated in scritpure, WHILE YOU DO THE EXACT SAME!You accuse me of speculation, because scripture nowhere explicitley says Jesus is Michael the archangel.
Well I can just as easily accuse you of the same. That's my point.I realize it's stupid to try to prove that Santa doesn't exist for example. The onus is on the one who believes in Santa to prove it. So I've shown you the missing cookies, the missing milk. The traces of white hair on the floor by the chimney. Somehow, there are presents under the tree. Sure, I haven't seen santa. But if he doesn't exist, you'll have to answer some questions.
(I realize this illustration is laughable, as Santa doesn't exist.)But my point is that you keep saying to only use scripture and not speculation. I am using scripture, although I realize, the ability to reason on things is required. If a + b = c, then without it being stated, we know that c is not less than b. It doesn't have to be stated. It's a fact.
When it comes to scripture, things are less clear, true. But if you were sitting in math class, your teacher would not have had a good time with you.Nick, you will tell me that c might be less than “b” because of some book you read, “alice in wonderland,” which isn't a math book, by the way. I choose to only look at the math book (the Bible in our illustration) and figure things out from that.
Rather than looking to questionable books to draw your conclusions, why not use the Bible to draw your conclusions?Hi david,
If you have found statements in scripture that say Jesus is an angel then we would love to share them. But we have no interest in speculations if you cannot show such scriptural proofs.Dearest Nick,
If you have found a statement that says that Jesus is without question not an angel, then please do share. If not, then I suggest you don't simply dismiss the following points I am about to show.(I would rather just talk about this in one of the many Michael the Archangel threads that have been started, or one of the other JW threads that have this discussion in it, but it seems to be a favorite topic of some. I have never actively said, let's talk about this. But, since you bring it up, here goes.)
The following is taken from http://jehovah.to/exe/general/angel.htm:
Some testimony of the early church fathers and othersCyclopedia of Biblical Theological & Ecclesiastical Literature by McClintock and Strong submitted:
“…the ‘Sons of God’, or even in poetry, the ‘gods’ (Elohim), the ‘holy ones’, etc. are names which, in their full and proper sense, are applicable only to the Lord Jesus Christ. As He is ‘the Son of God’, so also is He the ‘angel’ or ‘messenger’ of the Lord.” –Volume I, “Angel”, p. 226.Scholar, Martin Werner, wrote:
“… in the Post-Apostolic period the appearances of angels in the Old Testament narrative, so far as they occurred in some way for the succour of men, had already begun to be interpreted as appearances of Christ. This identification long remained a favourite one, as Origen, Justin, Irenaeus, Novatian and the Letter of Hymenaeus as well as other documents abundantly show us.”–Martin Werner, D.D., The Formation of Christian Dogma, p. 130Another scholar, John A. Lees asserted:
“The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael (the archangel) with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the ‘child’ and the archangel in Revelation 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Dnl [Daniel]…”–John A. Lees, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol. III, p.2048.Also, J. N. D. Kelly noted:
“In a number of passages (from church father Hermas) we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels forming God’s inner council, and who is regularly described as ‘most venerable’, ‘holy’, and ‘glorious’. This angel is given the name Michael; and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael.”–J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (Harper Brothers), p. 95MOST USED ARGUMENT AGAINST THIS BELIEF:
HEBREWS 1:5,13; 2:5 COULD JUST AS EASILY DIFFERENTIATE JESUS AS AN ANGEL FROM OTHER ANGELS AS IT COULD MEAN THAT HE IS NOT AN ANGEL.Revised Standard Version:
Hebrews 1:5 – “For to what angel did God ever say, ‘Thou art my Son…’”
Hebrews 1:13 – “But to what angel has he ever said, ‘Sit at my right hand…’”
Hebrews 2:5 – “For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come…”Since God said to Jesus ‘Thou art my Son’, ‘Sit at my right hand’ and subjected the coming world to him, then it would appear Jesus is not an angel, UNLESS JESUS IS AN ANGEL IN A WAY THAT DIFFERENTIATES HIM FROM OTHERS.
To illustrate this point, look at Psalm 82:7, where Jehovah said to Israelite judges:
“Nevertheless, you shall die like men and fall like any prince.” (Revised Standard Version)
Does the expression “you shall die like men” mean that those judges were not men or does it mean that they were being differentiated from ordinary men? In kind, the Hebrew passages could be complying with this same idea, that is, that Jesus though an angel, is to be distinguished from “ordinary” angels.
Another example might be brought forth to demonstrate this thinking. The account at Acts 23:9 reads:
“And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part arose, and strove, saying we find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.” (KJV)Some scholars understand that the “spirit” referred to here is a demon while the “angel” referred to one of the faithful holy angels. But does that mean that “angels” are not “spirits” since the passage reads “spirit or an angel”? No, the Scriptures are plain that angels are spirits. (See Psalm 104:1, 4; Hebrew 1:7; 1 Kings 22:20-22.) Notwithstanding that fact, angels are differentiated from spirits at Acts 23:9. Could this same principle apply with respect to the citations from Hebrews 1:5, 13 and 2:5 and the question of Jesus’ status as an angel?
POINT 1
With Pharaoh’s armies pursuing them, Moses and the Israelites were accompanied by an angel through the miraculously parted Red Sea. At Exodus 14:19-22, we find:
“Then the angel of the true God who was going ahead of the camp of Israel departed and went to their rear, and the pillar of cloud departed from their van and stood in the rear of them. So it came in between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel. On the one hand it proved to be a cloud together with darkness. On the other hand it kept lighting up the night. And this group did not come near that group all night long. Moses now stretched his hand out over the sea; and Jehovah began making the sea go back by a strong east wind all night long and converting the sea basin into dry ground and the waters being split apart. At length the sons of Israel went through the midst of the sea on dry land…” (NWT)
The Apostle Paul identified the angel that followed them through the Red Sea at 1 Corinthians 10:1-4:
“Now I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea and all got baptized into Moses by means of the cloud and of the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they used to drink from the spiritual rock-mass that followed them, and that rock-mass meant the Christ.” (NWT)POINT 2
Interestingly, the angel that had been assigned to Israel is named “Michael” in other passages. (See Exodus 23:20-23; Daniel 10:21; Daniel 12:1.)POINT 3
The Apostle Paul made this comment:
“And what was a trial to you in my flesh, you did not treat with contempt or spit at in disgust; but you received me like an angel of God, like Christ Jesus”. (Galatians 4:14) (NWT)
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
“and my trial that [is] in my flesh ye did not despise nor reject, but as a messenger of God ye did receive me — as Christ Jesus;”
There is certainly the sense here that being received like an angel was the same as being received like Jesus Christ. Doesn’t this suggest then that Jesus Christ is an angel, albeit an exceptional one?POINT 4
The Septuagint translation of Isaiah 9:6, 7 next commands our attention. Both Jews and Christians alike understand that Isaiah 9:6, 7 is a prophecy about the Messiah, the Christ. Translator Lancelot C.L. Brenton rendered the Septuagint verses:
“For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end…”
The phrase “Messenger of great counsel” translates the Greek “M?
?? ??? ?” which is also translated “Angel of great counsel”. This inference may be more th
an suggestive.POINT 5
In the highly symbolic book of Revelation, chapter nine depicts the disciplining of individuals who “have not the seal of God in their forehead.” Those administering the discipline are said to have “a King over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon”. (vss. 4, 11) (King James Version). Who is this angel who is a over subjects of God performing his will? We know that Jesus is called a King in heaven and so too Jehovah and humans that are resurrected to heaven. Clearly, Jehovah is not the “angel who is a King” and the heavenbound resurrected humans are not angels at all. Doesn’t this leave Jesus as the likely candidate? (Jeremiah 10:10; Zechariah 14:9; Psalm 2:6-8; Luke 1:32,33; Daniel 7:13, 14, 27; and 2 Timothy 2:11,12)And here are some additional scriptural reasons for coming to this conclusion:
WHO IS MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL?
The spirit creature called Michael is not mentioned often in the Bible. However, when he is referred to, he is in action. In the book of Daniel, Michael is battling wicked angels; in the letter of Jude, he is disputing with Satan; and in Revelation, he is waging war with the Devil and his demons. By defending Jehovah’s rulership and fighting God’s enemies, Michael lives up to the meaning of his name–“Who is Like God?”
He is referred to as “the great prince who has charge of your [Daniel’s] people,” and as “the archangel.” (Dan. 10:13; 12:1; Jude 9, RS)
At times, individuals are known by more than one name. For example, the patriarch Jacob is also known as Israel, and the apostle Peter, as Simon (Gen 49:1,2; Mat 10:2) God has also changed peoples names when they take on new roles–Abram to Abraham for example. Sarai to Sarah, another. Likewise, the Bible indicates that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ, before and after his life on earth. There is no statement in the Bible that categorically identifies Michael the archangel as Jesus. There are several points that all strongly imply it however.POINT 6
JESUS CALLS OUT WITH AN ARCHANGELS VOICE.
Commenting on one aspect of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, Apostle Paul wrote:
“because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. (1 Thessalonians 4:16) (NWT)
If Jesus is not the archangel in this event and he is superior to the archangel, then why would he perform this act as though he was someone of lower rank? Wouldn’t he be using an archangel’s voice because he is an archangel?
At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (RS), the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as “the archangel’s call,” and Jude 9 says that the archangel is Michael.
It is reasonable to conclude that only an archangel would call “with an archangel’s voice.” Would it be appropriate to liken Jesus’ commanding call to that of someone lesser in authority?
For example, a king is above a noble. If you have a king, someone in great power and he calls out something of importance, you wouldn’t say: ‘He called out with a nobles voice,’ unless the King was a also a noble. If the king wasn’t a noble, you would say: He called out with the voice of a king. To say he called out with a nobles voice would be to diminish him, UNLESS HE WAS BOTH A NOBLE AND A KING.
It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Mt 28:18; Re 17:14)
If the designation “archangel” applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to “an archangel’s voice” would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.
Reasonably, then, the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ.POINT 7
“ARCHANGEL” IS NEVER FOUND IN PLURAL IN SCRIPTURE.
Interestingly, the expression “archangel” is only found in the singular, never in the plural in the Scriptures, thus implying that there is only one. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that Jehovah God has delegated to one, and only one, of his heavenly creatures full authority over all other angels.
Adding to this, I would like to say that some like to use the phrase: “Archangels” or speak of them in plural. The Bible never does this. Perhaps they are taking this belief from the The book of Enoch, a non-biblical book, which while it may be useful for historical purposes, also contains falsehoods, as even supporters of it have stated, and it is not part of the inspired Word of God.POINT 8
WHO TAKES ACTION AGAINST SATAN, “RULER OF THIS WORLD”?
Revelation 12:7-12 says that Michael and his angels would war against Satan and hurl him and his wicked angels out of heaven in connection with the conferring of kingly authority on Christ. Jesus is later depicted as leading the armies of heaven in war against the nations of the world. (Rev. 19:11-16)
Is it not reasonable that Jesus would also be the one to take action against the one he described as “ruler of this world,” Satan the Devil? (John 12:31)
Daniel 12:1 (RS) associates the ‘standing up of Michael’ to act with authority with “a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time.” That would certainly fit the experience of the nations when Christ as heavenly executioner takes action against them.
So the evidence indicates that the Son of God was known as Michael before he came to earth and is known also by that name since his return to heaven where he resides as the glorified spirit Son of God.POINT 9
WHO ELSE IS SPOKEN OF AS HAVING ANGELS UNDER SUBJECTION?
Aside from the Creator himself, only one faithful person is spoken of as having angels under subjection—namely, Jesus Christ. (Matthew 13:41; 16:27; 24:31) The apostle Paul made specific mention of “the Lord Jesus” and “his powerful angels.” (2 Thessalonians 1:7) And Peter described the resurrected Jesus by saying: “He is at God’s right hand, for he went his way to heaven; and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him.”—1 Peter 3:22.
ARMY LEADER:
The Bible states that “Michael and HIS angels battled with the dragon….and its angels.” (Rev 12:7) Thus, Michael is the Leader of an army of faithful angels. Revelation also describes Jesus as the Leader of an army of faithful angels. (Rev 19:14-16) And the apostle Paul specifically mentions “the Lord Jesus” and “his powerful angels” (2 Thess 1:7; Mat 16:27; 24:31; 1 Pet 3:22) So the Bible speaks of both Michael and “his angels” and Jesus and “his angels.” (Mat 13:41) Since God’s Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven–one headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus–it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role.POINT 10
JESUS IS COMMISSIONED TO DESTROY ALL THE NATIONS AT ARMAGEDDON
Daniel, after making the first reference to Michael (Da 10:13), recorded a prophecy reaching down to “the time of the end” (Da 11:40) and then stated: “And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel’s] people.” (Da 12:1) Michael’s ‘standing up’ was to be associated with “a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time.” (Da 12:1) In Daniel’s prophecy, ‘standing up’ frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as king. (Da 11:2-4, 7, 16b, 20, 21) This supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah’s appointed King, commissioned to destroy all the nations at Har–Magedon.—Re 11:15; 16:14-16.
Yes, th
ere are other angelic creatures of high rank, such as seraphs and cherubs. (Genesis 3:24; Isaiah 6:2) Yet, the Scriptures point to the resurrected Jesus Christ as the chief of all angels—Michael the archangel.Having considered both some historical and scriptural data, it ought to be clear that the argument that Jesus is or was the principal angel, even Michael the archangel, is not without some weight and ought not be discounted as untrue.
DAVID
Also, Nick, there's some things in here we haven't discussed before, so please do read it before you simply dismiss it. And please provide answers for the questions asked. If Jesus is Michael the Archangel, these questions arn't a problem. If he isn't, this raises some questions. I'd like answers, if possible.Someone starts a thread on Michael. Someone starts a thread on JW and we start to discuss Michael. Someone starts another thread on Michael. Someone starts another thread on JW and again, that subject comes up.
I have reposted the above post, with additional comments (note 6b and 6c for example) in the following place:
Sept 19/2006, General questions, “Jesus/Michael” thread.
That's the biggest Michael the Archangel thread, so it's the one I'm going to discuss this in. Please go there and comment on this subject. If you state anything here, I'll just copy and paste it anyway. thanks.
david.
Hi david,
“If you have found a statement that says that Jesus is without question not an angel, then please do share. “
This is a biblical forum david so only bible evidence is accepted as truly valid.Scroll up Nick. I realize that there is only circumstantial “bible evidence” and not a direct statement. But it is Biblical evidence none the less.
Hi david,
Circumstantial evidence is the basis of the trinity theory,
which you rightly abhor,
so why would you walk the same path and teach from the same basis of folly?With the trinity theory, there is what some would consider circumstantial evidence. But there is also a mountain of evidence that points the other way.
With the trinity theory, someone says one thing, such as: “Jesus was worshipped.” Then, we point out that that word “proskyneo” has a variety of meaning and that that word was also applied to human kings, etc.
With this, there really is far less evidence pointing in either direction, but I would say what we do have definitely points to Jesus being the name given to Michael when he came to the earth to carry out God's will.
With the trinity theory, Nick, you are always ready to show countless scriptures that prove the trinity false.
With this issue, you haven't answered one of my questions. I'm not certain you've even read my last post. (Go to the Michael/Jesus thread. I had slightly more information.david
Hi david,
You say
“but I would say what we do have definitely points to Jesus being the name given to Michael when he came to the earth to carry out God's will. “Did Jesus make any such claim?
Which prophet or apostle said this?None.
Are there other teachers we should be listening to?
What Daniel did say is that
Michael is one of the chief princes and
Messiah is the prince of princes.The rest is fantasy and dangerous speculation.
David,
I can tell you are sincere. The JW's may have a lot of things correct, but do they have everything correct? Do you believe they are infallible?
I have never got an answer out of a JW before on this issue and was wondering if you would just lay it straight without pulling any punches. Can a non-JW be saved?
Do you believe that t8, Nick, H, myself or any of the others have the hope of glory, Christ in us?
Quote Do you believe they are infallible?
JW's are imperfect humans, as we all are. They have corrected themselves even more than Nick has corrected himself. When they come to learn that something is wrong, they humbly change.Perhaps you haven't gotten an answer because those who you've asked are not judges ruling in heaven with Christ.
I am not a judge. God has appointed Christ Jesus and those who make up the kingdom to be priests and judges and rulers over mankind.
Let me answer your question with a question. If Jehovah sends out people to give a “witness to all the nations,” before the end comes (mt 24:14) and one of these comes to you and attempts to speak with you about the Bible and really to bring you good news and at the same time a warning, and you choose to ignore him, how would Jehovah, the one who did the sending feel?
I am not a judge. I do not bear that weighty responsibility.Do I believe that t8, Nick, H or yourself have the hope of glory, Christ in you?
I don't even believe I do. I truly am the least among my brothers, and I'm not being humble in any way.Let me quote from someone who I have more hope in then myself:
. I have begun to study with the JWs and I find that so much peace is experienced when you can see that every thing taught is supported in the word of GOD. For the last four years I have not been consistently going to any church. Every service I would sit in I would find that so much was wrong it was unbearable. I have pull out my Strongs Concordance and my Hebrew and Greek Lexicon and found no issues that could not be confirmed or assumed from scripture. Most of all I know that they are seeking to please Jehovah God. I have not found this in any other church in the way God says we should seek to please HIM. Not just lipservice but real genuine seeking God's Word. As I said in another place the so called christian churches, that I have experienced have ministries that are more interested in building the membership, the buildings, and their pocketbooks by whatever means possible. I still believe that God's people can be found in various places. Only because I know what God has done for me before I met the JWs but I am wondering more and more if that was because HE was leading me to this peace and right fellowship. I have had so many attacks by the enemy on my life that dont make sense for someone so in to holiness as I am and seeking to know the word of GOD as I have been. I think I have been out of fellowship with GOD as I need to be. I think that you must yield and let God lead you. You have to let go of your preconceived notions that I have found can be more important to us than we know. God was leading me to the JW church before and I could not accept that they believed that Jesus was not God and may be Michael, the Archangel. I have study this extensively now on my own, before I began studying with them. I am studying every criticism that I hear about them. Most are unfounded and the teachings are more biblical than the accusers. I also noticed that people who know nothing of the JWs have an unexplained vehement anger toward them. This continues to amaze me.
Only a few, in relationship to the numbers, trusted God, feared Him and obeyed Him. Only a few heeded the warning. Find your brethren and encourage them, in whatever meeting hall that they are in. You cant do your part sitting at home alone. For me, I determined that the JW's were the only group where each member is involved in preaching the gospel. They dont just go to church, shout, PAY THEIR TITHES, and expect the preachers (most interested in increasing their church membership, buildings, and pocket books) to do the good works with THEIR TITHES. Just so they can be blessed financially.Mercy, I believe. Actually, I know that anyone who has a good heart and really truly wants to find God, despite whatever may befall him, he will find the truth.
I guess I should also say that there is a great stretch of time including the dark ages, when people didn't get to hear God's word. They really had no chance. Obviously, God is love and he is just. These will be given a chance, just like everyone else is given a chance. There's to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.
david
does your answer reflect that you believe the hope of glory has to do with being part of the 144,000?
Thus you don't believe you are part of that?
Hi david,
You say
“Let me answer your question with a question. If Jehovah sends out people to give a “witness to all the nations,” before the end comes (mt 24:14) and one of these comes to you and attempts to speak with you about the Bible and really to bring you good news and at the same time a warning, and you choose to ignore him, how would Jehovah, the one who did the sending feel?'Instead listen to Jesus.
Matt 6
“33But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and his righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you.”
Lk 24
” 49And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high. “David,
You avoid answering a generalized question by adding specifics. Mercy did not ask for a judgement if he was saved, but do the JW's believe non-adherents can be saved, what is the offical position?Well, I am new here and actually just typed a reply to the Trinitarian post but I looked at these threads and have found some interesting comments and unnecessary rude comments. I think I speak for most here that to find truth (and not argue your position) we must discuss things as adults here and have the understanding that we all carry some sort of preconceived notion and bias theological lense from which we read and base our hermeneutics on. Having said that to move on with my inquiry and words…
I have read some JW literature for a couple of years now (been studying theology for nine years though). Having come to tenets of annihilationism and my doubts I continue to have on the Trinity I am intrigued of their teachings. However I always seem to come and hit a wall when I sincerely question their tenets of faith. Believe me, I have learned to be cautious with my words, it has been unfortunate that they seem to get upset when I have doubts of their position. It is not as though I say they are wrong but I question why they teach a certain dogma.
For instance:The 144,000 nowhere imply any heavenly realm of Jehovah's Witnesses but speak of 12000 from each tribe of Israel.
1914 indeed was a bad year but to make a foundation for the “appearance” of Christ is reaching a bit in my opinion.
Why have many of my friends become “excommunicated” from the Kingdom Hall for questioning sincerely a teaching just because they didn't understand something.
Why must an exwitness be treated so harshly by current witnesses?
How can a group be so sure “their” denomination is THE congregation of God on earth.
Now here is a petty one but having kids it is a major one. I personally boycotted Christmas for years after learning it's beginnings. However my kids love Christimas and it actually brings a spirit of peace (or of Christ) when we actually take into account what that morning brought us. Yes, I am aware that the particular date is not right but since we don't know for sure I see no problem using it as such. Paul said in Colossians not to judge anyman who considers a day more important to others since they treat each day as unto the Lord.
Scripture most assuredly teaches that Christ is worshipped. To break down the Greek is a nonessential when you can replace it using obessiance and find that that word is frequently either used or described in pertaining to Christ.
Now David, you seem kind and devout. I trust to get some honest answers out of you. Please do not take anything I have said as bashing you or wanting a debate. I am sincerely inquiring the JW position. I find they are kind and to their credit, devout in studying the Scriptures unlike most of us Protestants our here. In regard to the NWT, I applaud the Watchtowers honesty avoiding being biased as best as they can. You will no doubt find some theological bias in any translation. FOr instance I have come to enjoy the HCSB which for the most part has been done by the SBC. They replace “strong drink” with “beer” since they do not believe a believer (pun intended) can have a beer in their Southern Baptist Message of Faith. The NWT has some verses that just up until recently were considered wrong. Only now the NIV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, HCSB, and other modern versions are likewise translating these same verses the same way! Too funny
Quote David,
You avoid answering a generalized question by adding specifics. Mercy did not ask for a judgement if he was saved, but do the JW's believe non-adherents can be saved, what is the offical position?HI Seekingtruth, first, he asked a general question, but then I thought he did specifify “t8, Nick, H, [him]self” as examples.
There is a reason, that, as Mercy says, he has yet to get a specific answer to this question from Jehovah's Witnesses. I cannot read hearts. I am not a judge, am I? That role has been asigned to a limited few, with Jesus in the lead.
As well, people aren't “saved” while they are alive. “He who endures to the end, is the one that will be saved.” (Mat 24)
Of course, the Bible says there is to a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous. While Jesus fortold that during the last days, or the conclusion of this system of things, a global worldwide preaching work would be done, as a witness to all the nations, wherein the good news would be preached, what of those who perished in times of ignorance? I believe they will be given their chance during judgement day, which I believe is a thousand year period. (But that's another subject.)
As for people living today…. “Nevertheless I ask, They did not fail to hear, did they? Why, in fact, “into all the earth their sound went out, and to the extremities of the inhabited earth their utterances.””–ROMANS 10:18Jesus said that the people of Noah’s day “TOOK NO NOTE until the flood came and swept them all away.”—Matthew 24:38, 39.
This despite Noah being a “preacher of righteousness.” (2 Pet 2:5)Jesus said that the last days would be just like the days of Noah. (Mat 24:38) They were doing the normal things of life, they took no note. The flood came and swept them all away.
That's the death of a lot of people. Do we say: How sad for them. Do we say: How unfair. They took no note of what Noah was doing. The world had become extremely corrupt, as this world is becoming.
Today, a worldwide preaching work is under way:
MATTHEW 24:14
“And this good news of the kingdom will be preached in all the inhabited earth for a witness to all the nations; and then the end will come.”ACTS 1:8
“but YOU will receive power when the holy spirit arrives upon YOU, and YOU will be witnesses of me both in Jerusalem and in all Ju·de′a and Sa·mar′i·a and to the most distant part of the earth.””Simply put, I am not the judge. I'm just a messenger.
Hi Casey. How are you doing?
You state:Quote The 144,000 nowhere imply any heavenly realm of Jehovah's Witnesses but speak of 12000 from each tribe of Israel. 1914 indeed was a bad year but to make a foundation for the “appearance” of Christ is reaching a bit in my opinion.
Why have many of my friends become “excommunicated” from the Kingdom Hall for questioning sincerely a teaching just because they didn't understand something.
Why must an exwitness be treated so harshly by current witnesses?
How can a group be so sure “their” denomination is THE congregation of God on earth.
I'll answer each of these questions one by one, if you wish. I've already talked about these things in various threads. There are two or three threads on here about JW's. You'll find some of my answers there. I would though like to say that some of your questions themselves imply wrong things. Quick question for you: What does DF'd mean?
Quote Yes, I am aware that the particular date is not right but since we don't know for sure I see no problem using it as such.
OK, I'm seeing now that you may not know as much about JW's and their beliefs as you seem to imply. There are about 5 reasons why we KNOW that Jesus wasn't born on Dec 25th. He wasn't. It's a fact. That date does happen to coincide perfectly with the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti (Birthday of the invinsible sun) and the Roman Saturnalia. The gift giving, also matches. The trees, the lights, the holly, the mistletoe, the date, all pagan origins. And the rest, the 3 wise men story, Santa, etc, lies. Paganism, and lies, is not the way to celebrate anything Christian. Putting a nice bow on it doesn't make it ok, either. Not according to the Bible. When the Israelites worshipped the calf, they called it a “festival to Jehovah.” Did the name help it out, at all? How many died that day, and at whose hand? Where does the Bible say to celebrate this very worldly holiday? Anyway, there's a thread on this subject.Quote Paul said in Colossians not to judge anyman who considers a day more important to others since they treat each day as unto the Lord.
Would this include days set aside to worship Satan? Would this include just any day? Obviously, this isn't what Paul was speaking of. I would suggest more research on that scripture.Quote Scripture most assuredly teaches that Christ is worshipped.
I'm sorry. But you are simply wrong on this point. Very, very wrong. I would like to help you understand why I say this, but there is a mountain of evidence in the “Was Jesus worshipped” thread, or whatever it's called. Basically, the word “pro·sky·ne′o” can mean to worship, but really, basically means to bow down to or to respect or honour greatly. WE KNOW THIS, because this word and it's Hebrew equivalent are used with reference to humans and human kings. Translators are trinitarian biased. They want to show Jesus being worshipped. Please see the thread I mentioned.Quote To break down the Greek is a nonessential when you can replace it using obessiance and find that that word is frequently either used or described in pertaining to Christ.
If you're suggesting that looking at what the Greek word actually means in Greek is not essential, and that we should just look at what our Trinitarian Bibles say without looking at the original meaning of the word, the way those who wrote it would understand it, then I can't help you, and few can.
If you're uncertain of this, we can look at one example.
MARK 15:19 (New King James Version)
“Then they struck Him on the head with a reed and spat on Him; and bowing the knee, they WORSHIPED Him.”
Many Bible's here have “paid homage to him,” or did “obeisance to him,” or something similar. Clearly, they were not spitting on him and at the same time worshiping him. The verse before (Mark 15:18) and Matthew 27:29 make clear that they “made fun” of him. It was in a mocking way that they did “obeisance to him,” bowing to him. They were not worshiping him and the context certainly doesn’t allow prosky
3568;néo to be translated as “worship” here.
CLEARLY, IT SHOULD NOT ALWAYS BE TRANSLATED AS “WORSHIP.”
As well, more and more modern Bibles are getting away from using the word “worship” with reference to jesus. They're figuring it out.I am sincerely inquiring the JW position. I find they are kind and to their credit, devout in studying the Scriptures unlike most of us Protestants our here.
Ya.(Just kidding)
The NWT has some verses that just up until recently were considered wrong. Only now the NIV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, HCSB, and other modern versions are likewise translating these same verses the same way!
Ya. I know.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
