Is Jesus Christ and Michael the ArchAngel one and the same person?

by booker-t 251 Replies latest watchtower scandals

• 

  Leolaia

  You totally misread the whole of my question. I wanted to know what LT thought. You continue to look at the miniscule and miss the obvious.

  I was addressing your motivation for incessantly asking a question about my posts and wondering what connection your question had with what I had just posted and LT's response. Forgive me for asking questions of my own about why you were so curious about this. The question originally wasn't "What does LT believe", as a simple inquiry of LT's faith but "Is Leo really upholding the scriptures". That's quite different, and that was your response to both my post and LT's approval of it. And by saying that I "continue to look at the miniscule and miss the obvious," is this meant as a criticism of my posts? If so, let's talk about the evidence I cited and what you feel is factually or interpretively incorrect (which is of course entirely possible). Or is this only an ad hominem?

  But lady, your general tone is anti-Bible.

  This sounds like a generalizing label to me. And one that appears to misrepresent my view of (and love for) biblical literature. Is trying to understand individual Bible books in their original social/intellectual context, how they were composed and compiled, what message they are trying to convey, etc. anti-Bible? I'm not sure what you mean by this label?
• 

  heathen

  sabrina --- You can always use the pm feature of this site to contact LT , there is no point in arguing with members over this issue . LOL

  Personally I don't have any trust in what leo has to say . Anyway moving along here , I think when jesus spent his time resurrecting people that died during his ministry was proof that his intent was to bring people back from the dead to live on earth for the most part but still called holy ones to join him in heaven such as the apostles and saints in the first century and again in revelation I believe the 144k that are sealed from among mankind are of the saintly class and revelation also mentions a great crowd of witnesses that survive the great tribulation and inherit the earth as jesus said, the meek will inherit the earth during his sermon on the mount.

  If we look at the genesis account the term soul is used to describe man and animal life which are called living breathing souls .
• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  I'm usually the one who throws threads of topic and so I should as a courtesy hesitate to post. I think I can step in now with minimal impact.

  [WT magazine writer mode: ON]

  If you walked into a conversation where alot of the concepts or issues being talked about by that group of people, presupposed or assumed alot of background information, could you reasonably expect to grasp it all clearly just by going on what was said then and there? Wouldn't you gain a deeper understanding, or at least a more accurate clarification of some of the material bandied about, if you also looked up the relevant information in other pertinent sources? So too with some personages, concepts, or beliefs referenced in the Bible. We can use cultural, religious and literary works contemporaneous to the bible writer to help us elucidate the points being made by them.

  [Mode: OFF]

  Parody aside....The above approach is sound. Thats why I appreciate all the research and effort that Leo puts into her posts. I feel I'm better off contemplating extra-canonical works, than trying to imbue meaning into scant material in the Bible with nothing else.

  Now to the topic

  The huge body of evidence that exists in extra-canonical Jewish works clearly shows a belief in several archangels, Michael being a very strong one but not the only one. That in itself calls into question the link the WT tries to make between Jesus and Micheal. Many other points made by other posters here just tip the scales further.
• 

  heathen

  midget sasquatch--- I prefer to use the bible exclusively . I think leo is sounding more like the WTBTS than she even realizes as are you . They love to quote outside sources as long as it supports their "opinion". They quote everything from readers digest to the satanic bible . I don't see how anything josephus had to say is that profound that it can even by considered authority , I also consider the fact that his works have been accused of being tampered with as well . I admit the bible is vague on the issue of who jesus was prior to his arrival as messiah but to me it makes way more sense to conclude he was an angel with great power and glory and the subliminal referrences throughout the bible I think point to him being the archangel michael . Time to exit this discussion myself ..... chow baby ...........
• 

  LittleToe

  Frankie:I don't label easily

  Midget:LOL
  I was happy to discuss the "soul" as it had a direct bearing on the Jesus/Michael incarnation thing. Beyond that we have been going entirely off-topic, though.

  I guess an on-topic question would be "what does archangel mean?".
  Is it the overarching head angel (singular) or an angel of the arc of God, or some other meaning.
  I'd be interested in hearing one of our resident scholars POV, on that one.

  Heathen:Believe me, you, that I don't take anything Leo, Pete or Didier say on face value.
  I've read a good number of the works they site.
  In my own case my doctrine was formed from the bible alone, and thusfar I've read nothing to contradict my conclusions, rather it enhances and clarifies them. In many cases it adds amazingly vivid colour to an already beautiful tapestry.

  Many Protestant denominations hold the bible canon of 66 books to be inerrant, and the other literature to being very useful. With a discerning eye and much work, it becomes reasonably clear what the first century context of Christianity was. The result is a picture quite different from what the WTS presents, as you well know.

  Myelaine:
  I've not held back from telling her, whilst also trying to stay on-topic.

  Sabrina:
  What do you want to know?
  I've written copious amounts over the last three years, but my doctrine was pretty much settled before I left the JW's.
  With the aid of the bible alone I came to most of the same conclusions that you'll find in the "Westminster Confession of Faith" and Calvinist doctrine. But even at this, I wouldn't like to be labelled, as even those definitions allow a lot of tolerance. This thread is too restrictive to post a full "systematic theology according to Toe".

  High on my list is the enjoyment of "Christian Liberty".
  As Augustine wrote (albeit this is a translation):
  In essentials, unity. In non-essentials, diversity. In all things, charity (love).

  Meanwhile I'd be MORE than happy to exchange views in a PM, if you want quick and specific answers. Otherwise, we can keep on finding out about each others beliefs in the various threads.
  As for the subjects in this thread - I don't think Michael is Jesus, and I do believe in an immortal soul. Why wouldn't I? After all, I believe I have one - surely you believe the same?

  (PS - the "anointed" comment was for your benefit, as I don't usually mention it at all, and I know your calling)
• 

  Narkissos

  To whom it may concern: the first people who tried to bully me into a "yes" or "no" answer to doctrinal questions were those on the judicial committee which df'd me for "apostasy". I never forgot that.

  Ross, about "archangel" in the 1st century Jewish or Christian literature I believe that there are two distinct meanings: (1) the "seven archangels" as evidenced by Leolaia's quotes, which clearly applies to Jude ("Michael the archangel," who is but one of the seven); (2) the "one archangel" as evidenced by Philo, which uses the etymological meaning of the term and can apply to the unique "Son of God" = Logos. The latter option might apply to 1 Thessalonians, although this is far from sure.
• 

  TD

  I think leo is sounding more like the WTBTS than she even realizes as are you

  A contextual analysis of the Bible in light contermporaneous literature is by its very nature, an exercise of inquiry rather than a rigid statement of fact. The Bible is rich in colloquialism, metaphor and other literary devices that cannot be fully appreciated any other way.

  That is absolute anathema to the JW's and kindred groups , who prefer to take the Bible as we know it today and treat it as a contiguous whole written primarily to and for them.
• 

  Leolaia

  I think leo is sounding more like the WTBTS than she even realizes as are you . They love to quote outside sources as long as it supports their "opinion".

  Considering that the number one thing that disgusted me about the WTS was their dishonesty in quoting sources in the Trinity broshure and Creation book, I'm pretty much that you all think I'm doing the same thing. Trying to understand the terms "archangel" and "third heaven" in light of the literature of the time (as any Bible scholar would do, if you care to read the literature), that is, reading the Bible in its context, is vastly different from citing sources wildly out of context as the Society does.
• 

  heathen

  Leolaia---

  Considering that the number one thing that disgusted me about the WTS was their dishonesty in quoting sources in the Trinity broshure and Creation book,

  Please elobarate because I do have these documents . What I get that you are doing is using literature that has been proved by many sholars as being insufficient as far as authenticity or complete frauds as noted by experts and I have seen material that disproves the relative nature to canonical scripture . For one thing jesus made no referrence to enoch as being so loved by God that God killed him . I do believe the bible was tampered with and still contains contradicting doctrine so I do my best not to use that as authorative material .
• 

  Narkissos

  Heathen: Do you mean you reject Genesis 5:21-24 from your Bible?

  As to the authenticity, or datation, of ancient writings, whether canonical or non-canonical, it must be discussed book by book, section by section, sentence by sentence in the case of interpolations. There is doubt about the exact datation of some quotations. But this does not warrant a global rejection of all non-canonical writings.