Praying in the name of Michael the archangel instead of Jesus
Just wondering what would happen if a brother saying a prayer in a meeting did it in the name of Michael the Archangel instead of closing the prayer with "Jesus Christ". Since JW's believe Michael is Jesus would he be counseled?
What if a brother used the name Michael the archangel in their public talks instead of Jesus? Imagine hearing "Michael the archangel, the son of God died for our sins" or Michael the archangel started reigning in 1914.
No doubt he would be talked to but by teaching that Jesus is Michael the archangel, the JW's really cannot technically do anything about it. The brother using this new expression can just say " Michael the archangel and Jesus Christ are the same person so I prefer to use Michael the Archangel unless you feel Jesus Christ role is greater than his role as the Archangel although being the same person which could lead to the question of Jesus being the same person as God but the role of father is greater than the role of son".
The teaching regarding Michael being Jesus is ridiculous and it would be exposed as such by using Michael's name instead of Jesus in prayers, talks, normal conversation.
Mind blown 😂 great point.
Technically, Michael is more accurate than Jesus in their own theology, as they say Michael is his heavenly name, where he is now. Even one of the songs said that, "In the heavens where as Michael he over Satan victory won".
Mike - The Savior. Sounds great !!
Jesus said to pray in his name.
Many in the early church identified Jesus with Michael, JWs are not unique in making that connection.
It wouldn’t be accurate jw teaching to say Michael in a prayer. Jesus Christ is used to recognize his role as Ransomer and redeemer. He’s not such as Michael in heaven, as he is a warrior in that role, not a Ransomer.
The “explanation” you offered is worse than the post itself
But Bobby, If it is indeed his name, then it matters not what his role is at any time.
He is the same person regardless right? If someone calls you "Robert" one day, and "Bobby" the next, they are still referring to you.
So, the opening poster makes a great point. If Jesus and Michael are the same person, (despite different roles), then why not use that name? It is not technically incorrect
If your dad is a sergeant of a police force, you don’t call him “sergeant” when he’s off work at home do you? You call him dad at home. You address him “sergeant” at work.
In fact, he wouldn’t want you to Calling him Sergeant at home. Same thing with Jesus and Michael.
If your Dad was a sergeant and you saw him in uniform you would still call him Dad.
You get the point. He is called Sergeant when he is in his role of sergeant. He is called dad when he is in his role as a father.
But keep ignoring common sense
If fact, if your dad is a sergeant in a police force, when he’s at home, try calling him Sergeant all day every day and then tell him that he has to keep his mouth shut and not to complain about it because you are “technically right“.