Of course those who say Michael is not Jesus would have been chomping at the bit if they had only had these arguments to use proving that Michael cannot be Jesus.
Michael cannot be Jesus. Here is why?
Michael once said, "Jesus is greater than I."
Paul said, "The head of Michael is Jesus."
Paul said, "Michael will subject himself to Jesus."
Michael said, "No one knows the day or hour but Jehovah and Jesus not even Michael."
Michael said, "I cannot do a single thing of his own initiative but only what he is told by Jesus."
Michael said, "I have come to know Jesus."
Michael said: "Why do you call me good. No one is good but the Father and His son."
Michael talked to Jesus.
Oh wait. Whats that? Michael did not say these things about Jesus. It was Jesus who said these things about Jehovah God the Father. Oh NEVERMIND! I guess those arguments can only be used to show that Jesus is not Jehovah God Almighty.
I need some good sriptures & reasoning to refute Jesus = Michael Archangel
by androb31 236 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
reniaa
-
PSacramento
Trevor,
I know, I was just making the point that I was not going on memory, I have the KIT in pdf.
The additions of definite and indefinite articles were, in many cases, left to the translator/reader, that's nothing new, though it can be a pain for us, coming around 2000 years later, LOL !
-
Spike Tassel
Nice wit, Reniaa.
-
PSacramento
Reniaa,
You do realize that, your very critique of the reasoning used by some to justify the trinity, is the same critique that one can apply to the WT reasoning that jesus is Michael.
hence my belief that Jesus is the Son of God, period.
-
TD
The genitive archaggelou requires an article when put into English. In this case, the translator has to make a judgement call. Some translations use "An" and some translations use "The."
The strongly Evangelical NIV uses the definite article, while the NWT uses the indefinite. (You would think it would be the other way around...)
But I think it would be a mistake to attempt to hang any great theological significance on the translator's coin toss...
-
reniaa
hi TD you said
But I think it would be a mistake to attempt to hang any great theological significance on the translator's coin toss...TD
apply what you just said to John 1:1 and you just said a monumental thing.
Reniaa
-
TD
Peace, Ren. I'm not a trinitarian and not even terribly religious.
apply what you just said to John 1:1 and you just said a monumental thing.
I said as much and more in this thread:
-
Narkissos
TD: The footnote in the NIV Study Bible may cast some light on the motive for the translation I think:"The only named archangel in the Bible is Michael (Jude 9; see Da 10:13). In Scripture, Gabriel is simply called an angel (Lk 1:19,26)." I'm afraid it's the define-words-only-by-canonical-usage game which is being played there too, in that case without a christological agenda of course...
-
Son of Man
My what an array of thoughts and thinking minds (oops are they one in the same?) or are thoughts a product of a thinking mind?
apply what you just said to John 1:1 and you just said a monumental thing.
Reniaa
John 1:1 might be straying away from the topic but someone else mentioned it so I guess I have a right to comment :) It should be read, and the Word is GOD, not the Word is a GOD. Why might you ask? The Word is GOD's written Word or LAW "personified....... The power of reason will tell you where it actually refers to Jesus.......
the faithful slave
-
PSacramento
Reniaa,
You keep bring out John 1:1 and even those of us that are not Trinitarians disagree with the "a god" translation, so not sure what your point is.
Most, if not all scholars, point out that John is speaking about the Nature of Lagos Being Theos, ie: Jesus's nature is that of God.