by unbaptized 57 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
Sorry LT. The Scripture speaks for itself. The thread asks does it matter, and that leads me to start with the fact that the person posting it believes in Scripture.
What can be added but the question, if Jesus created everything who then created him if he was a created angel? It helps me to post the Scripture that relates to the subject.
I'll work on that. Thank you for the heads up, I sure don't want to turn people off.
Oh I see I need to do it Watchtower style (Colossians 1:15) I got it.
interesting. Very.
I once had an email address of [email protected] and this man I knew at the time, who was a Witness, refused to e-mail that account as he felt it disrespected Jesus Christ. I should have kept it, but I needed e-mails from him, as it was business related.
There is another reason this identity confusion matters a great deal:
If Jesus is not Michael, then Jesus was not enthroned in 1914. The prophecies of Daniel and Revelation that they stretch nearly 2,500 and 2,000 years into the future (respectively) regarding Michael's activity would no longer apply. Their dogmatic authority—which is the only kind of authority the organization possesses—vanishes in a puff of smoke.
In other words, a Christian can read the Bible and come away comfortably saying Jesus may or may not be Michael and that it really doesn't matter. It matters very much to a JW because this unscriptural teaching is one of the handful of linchpins for their whole dogma. When a JW teaches as a positive truth that Jesus is Michael they go beyond Scripture in the doing. Whether or not it is true in actuality there is no Scriptural basis for teaching it as a truth. Only human interpretation can make it seem true.
unbaptized,
In Daniel and angel calls Michael "one of the foremost princes." (Daniel 11:13) Take a look at what other translations do with the same verse. When Jude wrote, Michael was already a common name. As has been mentioned often, the name "Michael" is a question. The answer is, "No one." However, if Michael is one of the foremost princes then there are others like Michael.
He is not uniquely an archangel. There is more than one archangel, i.e. more than one foremost prince.
So, if you are writing about an archangel and there is more than one archangel you would have to use the archangel's name. If you are writing about a being named Michael and there is more than one being named Michael you would have to narrow the focus to the kind of being you are writing about or the position they occupy. E.g. "Robert Miller, the CEO of Company X"
Or you could say, "... Michael the archangel ..."
It isn't as complicated as your religion makes it.
Respectfully,
AuldSoul
To claim Jesus as Michael is 'heresy'. As Kate states.
The Watchtower diminishes Christ' role, diety, sacrifice. By so doing they dishonor that sacrifice.
Jeff
A point of interest is that, on the second coming, in our day, Michael is no longer an angel. Note please:
Daniel 12:1 Michael, the great prince, stands up for his people.
Rev. 12:7 And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the drgon, and the dragon and is angels battled.......
A war in heaven, doesn't have to mean, actually in the sky, but a war of God's, with his backing.
I think it matters, very much if Jesus is Michael or not.
Hello Star,
I agree that Michael is more than an angel in Heaven. Also I do believe there was a war in Heaven becaue I do think satan would have left quietly.
Hi unbaptized, I've got a bit of time so I thought I'd start with you post where you said:
"Let's just use the ancient name of Almighty God before it was translated. (YHWH) Let's leave out the word LORD and GOD and call him by the name he gave to ancient Israel."
Actually, the name YHWH is not the full name that God gave to the Israelites. They took some letters out so it wouldn't be misused. No one knows now what it really looks like.
"Now let's call Jesus by his name that was translated as Yeshua in greek."
The question I have for you is why? Why stop at the Greek, why not go to the Aramaic? But having said that I'm fine with using YHWH and Yeshua, but I really would like to know your reasoning.
"Now you made some good arguments about the origin of Yeshua and about the word firstborn being used in that scripture, but you left out a very important piece namely the word CREATION. Did you look up the greek word for CREATION? Because that passage said that he was the Firstborn of all CREATION."
One could argue that "Firstborn of all creation." means that creation created him, but we know that‘s not what the text says.
See you still have a problem with Paul using firstborn not first created, also you have a problem with John 1:3 which tells us twice that Yeshua created everything that had a point of creation, and there is a problem with John 9 where Yeshua asks the man he had healed if he believed in the Son of Man, the man asked Yeshua who the Son of Man was and Jesus said that it was him, immediately the man worshipped him, the question is what’s the big deal with “Son of Man”? The answer is found in Daniel 7 where Daniel, along with ten thousand time ten thousand, are before the Ancient of Days (YHWH). Check out Daniel 7:13-14, there right in front of (YHWH) comes Yeshua and right in front of (YHWH) all of creation turns and starts worshipping him. Keeping in mind that (YHWH) says in Isaiah 42:8 "I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.”
There are more problems then that, some I’ve already listed in other posts, but instead of making a list let me just say that if the true teaching is that Yeshua is but a created being, a “little god” then the Bible is a mass of contradictions. I would still like to know if you think Yeshua is a true god.
Next, I disagree with you assessment of Psalms 89:27, you said:
“Secondly you pointed to a scripture in Psalms 89:27, stating that YHWH said that David was his firstborn? You also stated that this meant that David was in a higher position. I have to disagree with your logic, because YHWH was referring to his firstborn son Yeshua who's kingdom would never be brought to an end. YHWH stated in the scriptures that Davids kingdom would be the most high over all the kings of the earth.”
Here’s my point, first the context is clearly King David, second, (YHWH) says that He will “appoint him my firstborn,” the key word is “appoint.” Third, verse 30 speaks of his sons, we are brothers and sisters in Yeshua, and become children of God only when we accept Yeshua, (John 1:12-13)
Next you mentioned:
“Now David's kingdom was great indeed, but his son Solomon's kingdom was greater than his and their were other rulers on the earth who had far greater kingdom's than David ever had,”
Again I urge caution concerning your limiting (YHWH), if He says that He is appointing David the “most exalted of the kings of the earth,” Then David is the most exalted king of the earth. Having said that, let me add that, about Solomon kingdom being “greater” read the account, Solomon had greater wealth but his kingdom and himself had turned to many other gods, by way of his many wives. By today’s system he had it all many would love to live like Solomon or Hugh Hefner, but in the truth of (YHWH) Solomons Kingdom was a wreck, and Solomon didn’t figure it out till later in life
“So what I'm thinking now is Yeshua is the legitimate aire to the throne of David, he is the promised Messiah spoken of by the scriptures.”
Agreed
“Also the scriptures state the Messiah's kingdom will never be brought to ruin and it will be greater than any other kingdom on the earth.”
Agreed
“So my final conclusion is the Yeshua was the figurative David that YHWH was referring too his FIRSTBORN Son”
Disagree.
Wow, look at all that...sorry about the long posts gang.
