I need some good sriptures & reasoning to refute Jesus = Michael Archangel

by androb31 236 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  Narkissos

  A dumb ass speaking with a man's voice only makes sense because the ass is not a man. Think of what it implies about Jesus speaking with an archangel's voice -- although I don't think this is what 1 Thessalonians means, because only a circumstantial or temporal (cf. 1 Corinthians 15) interpretation provides a coherent function for the three consecutive en (combining different functions of the same preposition in the same sentence is usually avoided, e.g. 'he said in anger and in Italian').

  Although different in detail Matthew 24:30f offers one the best canonical parallels for the basic Pauline scenario (which differs also in its related forms in 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians): "Then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see 'the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven' with (meta)power and great glory. And he will send out his angelswith (meta)a loud trumpet call (salpiggos megalè), and they will gather (episunagô, cf. episunagôgè in 2 Th 2:1) his elect from the four winds, from one end of heaven to the other."
• 

  reniaa

  hi nark

  Matthew 24:30-31 (New International Version)

  30 "At that time the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and all the nations of the earth will mourn. They will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky, with power and great glory. 31 And he will send his angels with a loud trumpet call, and they will gather his elect from the four winds, from one end of the heavens to the other.

  hmmm this is not a good paralell because it is not the same event but both thess and john are the same event and are talking of the dead rising and what happens that triggers this.

  I stand corrected on Jesus sending an angel but it's not a big issue I wasn't sure and one thing Jesus, michael(if you think he is separate) and God all have in common is ALL have command over Angels.

  If having comand over angels makes you God then michael is also God.

  I keep checking and I find no one else quibbling over the translation of 'en' as 'with' in thess like leolaia does. even the most rabid anti=witness sites do not quibble that it says with.

  One thing I found out is Jesus being michael debate is an old one that has bean debated throughout the centuries. JW's are certianly not unique to think Jesus is michael.

  Another intersting factor is Jesus was accepted by a lot of trinitarian religions as the 'Angel of the Lord' from early on. So jesus not being an angel so can't be michael is only a recent argument as far as I can find from research.

  One thing I cannot understand is we quibble over the right verbs that show jesus is with michael and not michael himself. There are tons more verses like this showing Jesus is not God.

  I think these discussions highlight how much theology really effects debate.

  Reniaa
• 

  Leolaia

  reniaa....While you claim that this person is a "translator", I see no such claim on the website. It rather appears to me that http://jehovah.to is a site authored by a Jehovah's Witness to defend the NWT. The example cited from 2 Peter 2:16 is not parallel to 1 Thessalonians 4:16; the verb in the former is phtheggomai "to make a noise, cry out" which is semantically relevant to the modifier en phóné anthropou "with a man's voice". The semantic function of en depends on the kind of verb it modifies, so here the prepositional phrase works as an adverbial indicating the manner of the action performed by the agent of the verb. But in 1 Thessalonians 4:16, the verb katabainó is not a verb of speaking/talking/yelling/uttering/mumbling/etc. It is a verb of motion. One may say "he walked with a swagger", and here "with a swagger" indicates the manner of walking performed by the semantic agent. But that is not what is in 1 Thessalonians 4:16. A true parallel would have the modifiers pertaining to a verb of speaking, e.g. "The Lord himself will descend while speaking with a commanding cry, with an archangel's voice, etc." You see the difference? The true parallel is Psalm 47:5 LXX. Here the two en phrases indicate the attendant circumstance of the action of the verb, and the verb is a verb of directional motion (anabó "ascend") just like in 1 Thessalonians 4:16. And in neither passage are the sounds indicated by the en phrases performed by the agent of the verb.

  And the second problem, as Narkissos points out, is that in 2 Peter 2:16, the donkey is NOT a man; it is in this unusual circumstance that the donkey assumes the voice of a man while not being a man. And that reflects the point made in my previous post, which you have ignored like most of the points made in the post. It sounds really weird to say that Jesus is an archangel, and that there is no other archangel, and then to point out that on one occasion he has the voice of the archangel. This only makes sense if, like the donkey, Jesus is NOT the archangel but on this occasion has assumed the voice of one. Otherwise, what is the point of saying that Jesus sounds like himself?
• 

  reniaa

  HI leolaia

  the point is if we look at what archangel is, Chief of angels. so the verse is saying with a commanding call and with the voice of a chief of angels, and with the trumpet of God. this makes more sense. And certainly allows Jesus to be the archangel talking himself. And john backs this up saying it is jesus's voice that dead hear not an archangels voice as well in his verse. Revelation is not known for being especialy good at grammer in the greek and being quite rough in it's expressions.

  I have not the greek understanding to effectively debate you on greek so I am already severely handicapped on this discussion so I would like to state for the record that I would prefer an unbiased third party on this discussion.

  Reniaa
• 

  Leolaia

  hmmm this is not a good paralell because it is not the same event but both thess and john are the same event and are talking of the dead rising and what happens that triggers this.

  But as I pointed out at length, you are assuming yourself that John and 1 Thessalonians are talking about the exact same event.

  The author of John doesn't refer to any descent of the Son from heaven, he doesn't refer to the sounding of the trumpet. If he omitted those things, Paul could have omitted John's reference to the Son calling out to the dead.

  The trumpet blast in 1 Thessalonians is not necessarily the same one as the "last trumpet" that accompanies the dead. There are many trumpet blasts in Revelation, tho oddly enough none accompanying the resurrection of the dead.

  Perhaps the "midnight cry" for the virgins to get up and meet the bridegroom in Matthew is parallel to the "commanding call" in 1 Thessalonians. The announcement, "Behold, the bridegroom is here, come out to meet him" is not made by the bridegroom himself but by someone else announcing his arrival.

  It is not clear how many sounds are related in 1 Thessalonians. Is the "commanding call" different from the "sound of the archangel"? Do they happen at the same time? Is one given by the Son and the other given by an archangel?

  I keep checking and I find no one else quibbling over the translation of 'en' as 'with' in thess like leolaia does. even the most rabid anti=witness sites do not quibble that it says with.

  I'm not quibbling with "with" in 1 Thessalonians 4:16. It is perfectly valid as a translation. But "with" is ambiguous in English and my point is that it is supposed to be understood as indicating accompanying circumstance. Like this: "He descended with the sound of angels all around him". Every commentary I have read agrees with this. I used "amid" because it more clearly expresses this sense of accompaniment. "Amid" is used with reference to 1 Thessalonians 4:16 in the Greek grammar I mentioned (did you not see that?). "Amid" occurs in other contexts where the en phrase indicates accompanying circumstance.
• 

  Deputy Dog

  reniaa

  I have not the greek understanding to effectively debate you on greek so I am already severely handicapped on this discussion so I would like to state for the record that I would prefer an unbiased third party on this discussion.

  You and the NWT translation committee
• 

  Narkissos

  It is quite apparent from the context of John 5, even though it uses traditional eschatological wording and reinscribes futuristic eschatology into the perspective (especially v. 27-29 which were most probably added at a later stage, like the leitmotiv "I will resurrect him in the last day" in chapter 6), is overwhelmingly about a past/present "event" -- which is not the case of 1 Thessalonians 4 which is describing what is going to happen (in the immediate future).

  Indeed, just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, so also the Son gives life (present tense) to whomever he wishes. The Father judges no one but has given all judgment to the Son, so that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. Anyone who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him. Very truly, I tell you, anyone who hears my word and believes him who sent me has (present) eternal life, and does not come (present tense) under judgment, but has passed (perfect) from death to life.
  "Very truly, I tell you, the hour is coming, and is now here, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live. For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son also to have life in himself; and he has given him authority to execute judgment, because he is the Son of Man (straight from 1 Enoch 69:27!). Do not be astonished at this; for the hour is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and will come out--those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.

  The original perspective of "John" precisely moves what is future in traditional eschatology to the present. This is apparent in the dialogue with Martha in chapter 11: "Jesus said to her, "Your brother will rise again." Martha said to him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day." (traditional understanding). Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life. Those who believe in me, even though they die, will live, and everyone who lives and believes in me will never die. Do you believe this?" Btw Jesus will call Lazarus "with a loud voice" (v. 43) -- yes, it's Jesus' voice here, but it is a past/present event which actualises the general eschatological scenario which includes several characters (angels) and focuses it on just one (Jesus).

  On the "voice" the "dead" hear right now, passing from death to life right now, compare other references in the same Gospel: 3:29; 10:3ff,16(!),27; 18:37.
• 

  TD

  Reniaa,

  this translator ( i think he supports the Jw position) completely disagrees with you and can cite biblical examples were 'en' is 'with' especially when saying with a voice.

  The domain jehovah.to is owned and the associated website is run by an active Jehovah's Witnesses

  The individuals who have contributed to this site are not translators. They have no formal credentials at all.

  Leolaia is not speaking purely from her own authority. Her treatment echoes the opinion of the majority of Greek language and Bible scholars today. An afternoon at a good university library would verify this.

  The website you referred to makes a couple of sophomoric errors of grammatical comparison. The most egregious of which is ignoring the main verb completely

  If personalities are an issue here, you could join the B-Greek mailing list and raise the question there. There are a number of Greek professors and very competent amatuers who participate. --Even some JW's, like Rolf Furuli.
• 

  Leolaia

  reniaa....It just takes a few seconds with Google to get third party discussion. I don't think I need to do this for you.

  

  Randolph O. Yeager, Renaissance New Testament, 1985, p. 212.

  

  Robert Jamison, et al. A Commentary: Critical, Practical, and Explanatory on the Old and New Testaments, 1884, Vol. 4, p. 162

  

  John Eadie, A Commentary on the Greek Text of the Epistles of Paul to the Thessalonians, 1877, p. 162

  

  James E. Frame, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Paul to the Thessalonians, 1912, p. 174.

  

  Charles J. Ellicott, A Critical and Grammatical Commentary on St. Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians, 1862, p. 64.

  

  Leon Morris, The First and Second Epistles to the Thessalonians, 1991, p. 142.

  

  Charles A. Wanamaker, The Epistles to the Thessalonians: A Commentary on the Greek Text, 1990, p. 173.

  

  Gene L. Green, The Letters to the Thessalonians, 2002, p. 224.

  

  Alfred Plummer, A Commentary on St. Paul's First Epistle to the Thessalonians, 1918, p. 76.

  

  Robert E. Picirilli, Randall House Bible Commentary: I Thessalonians Through Philemon, 1990, p. 71.

  

  Gordon Fee, The First and Second Letters to the Thessalonians, 2009, p. 177.
• 

  Leolaia

  A few more:

  

  Alvah Hovey, An American Commentary on the New Testament, 1890, pp. 56-57.

  

  David Ewart, Studies in the Thessalonian Epistles, 1993, p. 65.

  

  Allan J. McNicol, Jesus' Directions For the Future: A Source and Redaction-History Study of Use of Eschatological Traditions in Paul, 1996, p. 35.

  

  George Milligan, St. Paul's Epistles to the Thessalonians: The Greek Text, With Introduction and Notes, 1908, p. 60.

  

  George G. Findley, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Thessalonians, 1904, p. 100.

  

  Earl J. Richard and Daniel J. Harrington, First and Second Thessalonians, 2007, p. 229.

  

  Colin R. Nicholl, From Hope to Despair in Thessalonica: Situating 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 2004, p. 42.

  

  Ernest Best, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 2003, p. 196.

  

  David Luckensmeyer, The Eschatology of First Thessalonians, 2009, p. 243.

  

  William Vine, Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, 1939, Vol. 4, p. 25.