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

by androb31 236 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  reniaa

  hi leolaia

  yes but unbiased? the problem witnesses have is years of theology shaping translation so it becomes a self perpetuating thing. trinity theology cannot allow the 'with' to be anything other than with in an accompanying sense so they have experts to back them up.

  You said yourself the ambiguity is there with the use of 'with' which is the word used and "amid" as much as you would prefer is not the actual word used.

  I know this is a pre-witness argument between scholars in greek so it must have enough ambiguity to go both ways.

  I always find this argument ironic because the word being 'With' God is given the opposite treatment in John 1:1 there people say it doesn't mean with God in the accompanying sense because it would mean another God accompanying God and so we have polytheism and 2 Gods.

  Reniaa
• 

  Leolaia

  I spent two hours doing your research for you, even highlighting the relevant passages, looking up virtually every Greek commentary in existence that comments on the passage (but I could actually probably go on finding more), all of which basically saying the same thing, and you think you still don't have an "unbiased third party on this discussion"? Bear in mind that none of these are addressing in any sense the NWT or the Society's own interpretation of the passage (as I am doing here). And the question of whether the en indicates attendant circumstance is not a matter of controversy or theological debate at all. I can't see how you would be satisfied with any third party discussion, if none of these are acceptable for you. I am pretty sure what you really want is a biased discussion in favor of what you already believe, as in the jehovah.to site you quoted earlier.

  You said yourself the ambiguity is there with the use of 'with' which is the word used and "amid" as much as you would prefer is not the actual word used.

  You are not understanding me. I said that "with" is ambiguous in English. Paul did not write in English. The actual word used is "in" which no translation uses in English. The idiom of attendant consequence is not ambiguous in the Greek, as shown by the uniformity of commentators. The only minor question is whether the preposition has temporal force, but that is irrelevant to what you want to make it mean.
• 

  DaCheech

  "You have to do the best with what God gave you. "

  "My momma always said, "Life was like a box of chocolates. You never know what you're gonna get."

  "Have you found Jesus yet, Gump? "

  "Stupid is as stupid does."

  "My Mama always said you've got to put the past behind you before you can move on."

  "Where the Hell is this God of yours? "
• 

  Narkissos

  "I am not convinced," or the Black Knight never loses: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2eMkth8FWno
• 

  reniaa

  hi leolaia

  heres a bibble verse that goes against the dative argument or acompanying

  Rev 19:17 has a similar construct

  "He cried with a loud voice " εν φωνη μεγαλη"

  en phoni megala (dative)

  He didn't cry 'in the midst' of a loud voice

  curtesy of a greek scholar (not me lol)
• 

  reniaa

  hi leolaia

  again curtesy of a greek scholar and not me.

  On the bases that it is answering the question "How did Jesus descend" so dative indicates the manner not the associates, people simply don't bring voices down with them.

  http://www.bcbsr.com/greek/gcase.html

  Dative of Manner (Adverbial Dative) [with, in (answering "How?")]

  The dative substantive denotes the manner in which the action of the verb is accomplished. Like many adverbs, this use of the dative answers the question "How?" The manner can be an accompanying action, attitude, emotion, or circumstance. Hence, such a dative noun routinely has an abstract quality. This usage is being supplanted by en + dative (or meta + gen) in Koine Greek.

  John 7:26 He speaks with boldness (= boldly)

  1Cor 10:30 if I partake [of the food] with thanksgiving (= thankfully)
• 

  reniaa

  hi nark and deputy

  on the the various scripturial accounts of this event the same elements are all there.

  1 Thessalonians 4:16 (New International Version)

  16 For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

  1 Corinthians 15:52 (New International Version)

  52 in a flash, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be raised imperishable, and we will be changed.

  John 5:28-29 (New International Version)

  28 "Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29 and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.

  the parallels are to marked to be ignored. And more importantly this is scripturial accounts of a specific ONE off event.

  And as a side issue why only one archangel mentioned? why is this one of some many as trinitarians would have it the one he descends with? and why specifically the voice?

  Reniaa
• 

  TD

  What is the main verb, Reniaa? (Krazo = Cry out) What is its relationship to a voice?

  "Cried" is something one does with their voice.

  "Descend" is not

  In this case, (Rev 19:17) the dative is instrumental, not locative and this is therefore not a grammatical parallel with 1 Thess 4:16 at all. (A.T Robertson broke the instrumental dative and the locative dative into separate noun cases)

  In fact, this is so obviously not a parallel with 1 Thess 4:16, that you can forget the Greek in this instance.

  The usage of "With" at Rev 19:17 is definition #4 in Webster's Encyclopedic Unabridged Dictionary -- of, means or instrument

  That is not the bone of contention with 1 Thess 4:16. The bone of contention is whether the English use of the word, "With" is possesive (Definition #3) or accompaniment (Definition #1)

  -----------------------------------

  John 7:26 He speaks with boldness (= boldly)

  1Cor 10:30 if I partake [of the food] with thanksgiving (= thankfully)

  I assume the intent here is an English comparison

  Easy way to test this theory:

  1 Thess 4:16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven...with an archangel's voice (= Please insert your adverb here Reniaa)
• 

  Deputy Dog

  reniaa

  I'm still waiting for you to tell me what came down from heaven.
• 

  Narkissos

  TD: how about "archangelophonically"? ;)

  reniaa: you made it clear from the beginning of your posting history that you weren't here to learn or change your mind about anything; you were not the first one with this attitude, and I learnt a bit from previous encounters. I for one am not trying to corner and compel your kind to admit anything, just using your posts once in a while to make a few points when I see it fit, for whomever may read. You are not being fought, chased, attacked or threatened -- or even actually addressed as far as I'm concerned (this post is an exception). It's a bit short of dialogue, I know, but I'm afraid it's the only kind of interaction you make possible (apart from emotional outbursts which won't qualify as dialogue either).