Heathen,
Not only is Jesus co-Creator and co-ruler. He is co-worshipped. See Rev. 5:13-14 and Rev. 21:22 and Rev. 22:3-4
Is Jesus Christ and Michael the ArchAngel one and the same person?
by booker-t 251 Replies latest watchtower scandals
-
-
ellderwho
Sabrina,
Theres tons of literature on how the Jews viewed angels. You'll be surprised. Its worth a look anyway, then put into perspective Pauls words in Hebrews 1. Just put jews/angels in google.
-
frankiespeakin
Is Jesus Christ and Michael the ArchAngel one and the same person?
I don't know? What I would like to know is: Is the Easter Bunny really Brer Rabbit on every day except easter sunday? I've got a very sneaky suspision they are one and the same I mean think about it they are both famous rabbits. I bet if we do a little research on this we would find lots of similarities.
But I have it on reliable sources that the Easter Bunnies name is Peter C. turn on your sound and click this link:http://www.kiddyhouse.com/Holidays/Easter/Peterctail.html
-
Narkissos
Heathen
I have already called into question the authenticity of the writings outside those of the bible . I mean even the catholic church tried to add it's own scripture in the bible , that does not give it credibility . The writings that are in the bible were determined to be compositions of ancient kings and prophets .
What do you exactly mean by "authenticity"?
- Canonicity? The canon is determined by the Church. If you are a Protestant you have 66-book Bible, period. Nobody questions that. But you are not forbidden to read the rest. Luther maintained that the "apocrypha" were helpful reading. Sadly many of the later Protestants turned ignorance into a virtue.
- Authority? This is not questioned either. Nobody asks you to build up a doctrine out of non-canonical books. Only to use whatever relevant data to really understand what canonical books meant in their own context.
- Inspiration? This is not at stake. When 2 Timothy 3:8 mentions "Jannes and Jambres" you just have to look to extra-canonical literature to find who they can be. Then you may decide that the NT author was inspired in his exceptional reference to a non-inspired work. This is a question of personal belief. But you still have to look outside the canon to understand.
- Authorship? Well, Enoch is not the author of the book of Enoch, but many canonical books are certainly pseudepigraphic as well. You can decide that they are not, but again this is a question of personal belief. And there would be some intellectual dishonesty in using the argument of pseudepigraphy against non-canonical books when you don't want to hear about it regarding canonical books.
As Leolaia very well said, when Jude quotes Enoch he begs his readers to read Enoch. That does not make Enoch canonical, authoritative, inspired or "authentic". It just means it is worth reading -- were it for the only reason of understanding Jude.
-
euripides
As Leolaia very well said, when Jude quotes Enoch he begs his readers to read Enoch. That does not make Enoch canonical, authoritative, inspired or "authentic". It just means it is worth reading -- were it for the only reason of understanding Jude.
Rather he (or she)--the author of Jude--understands that they (the readers/churches) already have read Enoch and are familiar with it (and accept its authority). It is being cited authoritatively. One thing I think which has not been brought up is that it does not seem as if the NT texts which refers to Michael, ie Revelation 12, and Jude 9, seem to presume that their readers understand this archangel to be Jesus. If they did, then it would have been a novel doctrine which presumably would have required further elucidation. Michael they knew, Jesus they now know, but how can they understand, i.e., from their perspective, that Jesus and Michael are the same?
-
Blueblades
The answer to this question is found in Revealation.
The Alpha and Omega question. The Alpha and Omega turns out to be Jesus who turns out to be Jehovah, one and the same. Therefore,that answers the question that Michael is not the same person as Jesus who is the same person as Jehovah.
Confusing, not if you read the verses carefully.
Blueblades
-
Narkissos
Euripides,
I was thinking of modern readers and speaking somewhat figuratively.
As to the early reception of the text, it is a much more complex issue if you take into account the general literacy rate as well as the scarcity and cost of complete manuscripts. Most scripture undoubtedly circulated under the form of testimonia, anthologies, i.e. excerpts of several works linked together for apologetic or parenetic purposes.
Obviously the author of Jude did believe in the inspiration and authority of the Book of Enoch. But this was probably not the case of all his early readers, as 2 Peter will find it necessary to rewrite it and avoid any direct reference to "questionable" literature.
-
Terry
myelaine asks: Find something worthy of your time and effort that will benefit your life. This isn't it.
And now....back to my own life which is, thankfully now devoid of the above cast of characters....
PREVIOUS POST.......Oral Sex: the forbidden years.....
Has Terry found something deep, meaningful and WORTHY of the effort that will actually benefit his life?
It was my wife who wrote the question to the Watchtower asking about oral sex. The consequent answer by the "faithful and discreet slave" put an embargo on it for years. The actual results on the lives of actual people was quite severe in some cases inasmuch as it violated people's personal and private self-expression with their marriage mates. Divorces ensued.
Compare the impact of this policy on real people with the question of whether or not Jesus is/was an archangel. What is the everyday consequence of THAT?
You see, myelaine, religious questions and debates are a distraction from people's own lives and well-being. The real issues that are deep and meaningful impact people's day to day living in an actual way.
Surely you see this. But, you were being agent provocateur, weren't you?
-
Terry
Leolaia says: Terry....At least for my part, I am not arguing for any existential reality to the concepts expressed in these ancient texts; I'm only interested in what concepts these texts might express, just as one would interpret the sources and concepts in Shakespeare, Sophocles, or the Upanishads.
Hmmmm. Really? Re-reading these posts it would seem to be an argument for "is-ness".
Since the Bible was not written by one person or one group with one agenda or policy I can't see that it is actually possible to parse "meaning" from assertions that something of the nature of Michael and Jesus "being".
There is a parlor game where one person begins a story and then the next person continues it (with some view to connectivity and context) to see where it leads. The story, such as it is and becomes, is AD HOC. There is no overall raison detre at all. I submit to you that the Scriptures are much the same.
To __prove__one must define in context and agree at all points that antecedent and consequent follow. In the case of assertions by early Christian enthusiasts, we confront creative imaginations triggered by no such necessity as basis in fact.
The 4th century arguments about the "nature" of Christ and God came not from the reality of Christ and God; but, from the very nature of the social background of each individual presenting a viewpoint. Take the Roman citizen who is accustomed to the emperor being called divine; to accept Jesus as a rule "greater than" the emperor requires some adjustment to his "being" at least similar in stature. The tribal person, on the contrary, is more comfortable with leadership of a human and limited definition. Consequently, arguments for divinity don't sit well.
The above arguments don't find resolution in "fact". It finds resolution in power. Who has the power to ENFORCE their own viewpoint and backed by what penalty?
Read (as I am sure you have) the history of the Nicene Council debates and those that followed. The emperor came down--first--on one side; and then, abruptly; on the other side. "Fact" became the hand-maiden of Emperor mind-change. Arius and Athanasius waxed and waned in the Emperor's opinion. The result was doctrinal flip-flop.
All such iron-clad doctrine is the juggler's ball. Who does the juggling decides the facts.
By all means; amuse yourselves here whatever way you wish. When one is incredibly gifted, as you are Leolaia, with a huge intellect (as you are) I just bemoan it isn't put to a more practical use. But, that is hubris of me to make such a statement and in no way is intended as a put down. I simply think of all the hours I personally wasted in such doctrinal to-and-fro nothings.
I commend your expertise and scholarship while looking at the subject matter as angels jitter-bugging on the head of pins.
-
euripides
Narkissos, you wrote, "I was thinking of modern readers and speaking somewhat figuratively. As to the early reception of the text, it is a much more complex issue if you take into account the general literacy rate as well as the scarcity and cost of complete manuscripts. Most scripture undoubtedly circulated under the form of testimonia, anthologies, i.e. excerpts of several works linked together for apologetic or parenetic purposes." Ah. Most scholars believe that these texts were disseminated to the churches in their written or copied format, but then were read aloud to the churches (congregations). The same may well have been true of 1 Enoch. So when I say "readers," I suppose I really mean, mainly, listeners. General literacy rates for the Roman empire at the period, based on statistical likelihood thorugh social class, are in the 10% neighborhood. And yes, that leads to the interesting topic of whether Jesus the Nazarene was literate, magic trick in reading from Isaiah in Luke notwithstanding. Perhaps I will start that one next!