Jesus is Michael the Archangel

by Fisherman 103 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Vanderhoven7, Jesus might not have said what the Gospel of John claims Jesus said Likewise Thomas might not have said what the Gospel of John claims Thomas said (of "my Lord and my God"). The "Jesus Seminar" concluded that most of the sayings attributed to Jesus in the NT gospel accounts are not actual sayings of Jesus.

    Atheism (positive/strong atheism) is a truth - an important truth. Jesus if he existed, was only a man - a mortal man who died and remained dead. Jesus is not a god-man nor God nor a god.

    From the point of view of atheism, it doesn't matter much if the Bible consistently teaches that Jesus is God, a god, and angel, or each, or neither.

  • TD
    TD

    I don't really care one way or the other. (No theological axe to grind)

    Those who believe Jesus to be Michael usually take "ἐν φωνῇ ἀρχαγγέλου" to mean possession (i.e. Jesus possesses the voice of an archangel because he is the archangel)

    I don't believe that's correct and the majority of Greek scholars don't either.

    In this construction, (locative) the preposition ἐν indicates accompaniment (Or attendant circumstance as some put it) as in, "The President entered the room with the sound of a brass band."

    Here is a very, very small sampling of textbooks and reference works on the subject:





  • TD
    TD

    Not sure why most of these flew off into the ether. There were over 25 in all

    Arguing that "with" means possession works in English. It doesn't work in Ancient Greek. That's what the genitive case was for.

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Revision of the last paragraph of my prior post: From the point of view of atheism, it doesn't matter much if the Bible consistently teaches that Jesus is God, a god, an angel, or each, or neither. A number of observations make more sense when examined from the point of view of atheism (and naturalism). For example, the Bible becomes perceived as merely being the ideas of adult male human authors lacking supernatural inspiration.

    A further point: I think that on this site, instead of me arguing (or debating or refuting) about what I think the Bible teaches versus what someone else thinks the Bible teaches I will instead point out theological contradictions in the Bible and false teachings of the Bible. That way when discussing biblical theology I can focus on directing people away from theism and towards atheism. By so doing I can direct people towards the truth of atheism and its grand implications.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    —See Insight on Scriptures under Michael under the subheading archangel’s voice for an explanation on wt interpretation of 1The and commentary.

  • Fisherman
    Fisherman

    It was through angels that God appeared to Moses and Moses addressed those angels as Jehovah, and on other occasions too angels were were addressed as Jehovah. In fact, the name Israel means to wrestle with God although Jacob only wrestled with Jehovah’s angel.( “So Jacob named the place Pe·niʹel, for he said, ‘I have seen God face-to-face..’”) Jacob did not actually see God and neither did doubting Thomas.

    Having all authority, Jesus is God by power of attorney or proxy.

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Fisherman, what you said about accounts in the Bible of God appearing and of angels being addressed as Jehovah, might be the way those biblical accounts were meant to be interpreted, but I lean towards a different view. When I contemplated those accounts a number of years ago I was thinking those accounts have internal contradictions, and/or contradict other parts of the Bible. In addition, now I see it as possible evidence of the scholarly documentary hypothesis that some stories in the OT are a combination of conflicting sources from two or more areas - namely those from the northern kingdom (Israel) who primarily called God by the title/name of Elohim, those from the southern kingdom (Judah) who primarily called God by the name of Yahweh/Jehovah, those from the Priestly class, and the Deuteronomist source.

    Note for the example the following. Genesis 32:28-29 9 records an angel as saying that Jacob's "name will no longer be called Jacob but Israel", but 2.5 chapters later, in Genesis 35:18 says God tells Jacob "no longer is your name to to be called Jacob, but Israel your name will become." Notice that in one case an angel is saying the name will be changed but that in another case God is saying it. The latter part of 35:18 says "And he began to call his name Israel" yet verse 14, 22, 27, and 29 still say Jacob even though verse 21 says Israel, and 36:6 says Jacob instead of Israel, and 37:1-2 also says Jacob instead of Israel. It is odd that chapter 35 keeps switching back and forth from the use of the name Jacob to the name Israel, but the idea of somewhat conflicting documentary sources being used makes sense of this.

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Correction/Revision: The last paragraph of my prior post is now revised to say the following.

    Note for the example the following. Genesis 32:28-29 records an angel as saying that Jacob's "name will no longer be called Jacob but Israel", but 2.5 chapters later, in Genesis 35:18, Genesis records God telling Jacob "no longer is your name to to be called Jacob, but Israel your name will become." Notice that in one case an angel is saying the name will be changed but that in another case God is saying it. Though these examples might not be a contradiction of each other, it is still odd that Jacob is being told that at two different times (once by angel and once by God). The latter part of Genesis 35:18 says "And he began to call his name Israel" yet verses 14, 22, 27, and 29 still say Jacob even though verse 21 says Israel, and 36:6 says Jacob instead of Israel. It is odd that chapter 35 keeps switching back and forth from the use of the name Jacob to the name Israel, and 37:1-2 says Jacob instead of Israel, but the idea of somewhat conflicting documentary sources being combined makes sense of this.

    I remember that at least one time when I was an active JW I was perplexed why the book of Genesis kept switching back and forth in its use of the names Jacob and Israel for the some person - even after the portion of the narrative which said the name change by God took effect. Back then I didn't know of the documentary hypothesis.

  • Earnest
    Earnest

    TD, you can always be relied on to produce a thoughtful post. There seem to be two possible categories for the dative of the εν phrases, either instrumental or associative. If it's instrumental then the Lord has the voice of the archangel, he calls out the commanding call and he descends with God's trumpet. If associative then he descends in association with these things.

    The grammar does not rule out an instrumental interpretation. For example, Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers says:

    Probably, therefore, the “shout of command” is uttered by the “leader of the angels;” and the trump (called “the trump of God” because used for God’s purposes) is blown to summon the mustering hosts. In favour of supposing the Lord Himself to utter the cry, may be adduced John 5:25; but, on the other hand, it suits the dignity of the scene better to imagine the loud sound to come rather from one of the heralds of the great army.

    So the choice naturally follows theological bias.

  • TD
    TD

    The locative and instrumental are both subsumed under the dative in Ancient Greek, but the latter is strained without any clear indication of instrumentality.

    In this case we don't know who originates the call, what specifically it accomplishes, and how. All of that has to be assumed to make a valid case for the instrumental which is exactly how theological bias creeps in.

    I'll post some more references. The overwhelming majority of Greek grammatical and lexical aids state the construction is locative, so there are quite a few

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit