Is Michael the Archangel really Jesus?

by twinkletoes 84 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  For years I have believed what the WT says about Michael the archangel really being another name for Jesus Christ. But now I am reading lots of other non-witness books, I am beginning to question this teaching.

  Has anyone done any research on this particular subject.

  Your comments would be appreciated

  thanks

  Twink

  The Watchtower has actually held several positions on the identity Michael (even twice returning to previouly discarded positions). From reading the older Watchtowers I believe the sequence was:

  1. Michael was an angel that worshipped Jesus

  2. Michael was the antichrist (the pope according to the WT)

  3. Michael was Jesus Christ

  4. Michael was once again the pope

  5. Michael was once again Jesus Christ

  I have documentation on all the above and hope to start a thread on this soon (posting the exact dates and specific arcticles). I also hope to do a follow up with what I belive is the biblical evidence against the Michael doctrine.
• 

  twinkletoes

  Thanks Narkissos - I have made a note of the websites and will also have a look in my catholic bible. I was brought up as a catholic, but we never really used the bible to the full during my school years.

  Hooberus - I look forward to your thread on this subject.

  Thanks

  Twink
• 

  Hellrider

  Hooberus wrote:

  Michael was the antichrist (the pope according to the WT)

  Ha ha! If they really believed this, then switching to "Michael is Christ", then it would be safe to say that they don`t know their head from their ass.

  I too know that this subject has been discussed again and again, but it doesn`t matter, it`s so interesting. I have no clue what to believe, though, after reading Narkissos, Leolaias and J.Maliks posts. Well, maybe that`s a good thing.

  Just a question (for all of you): Do you think it`s right to include other texts (apocryphic and others) from the time the NT was written, into this discussion? What people reading the NT texts at that time, and what they read into them (and then wrote about themselves), could be...all sorts of things, don`t you think?
• 

  Leolaia

  Narkissos...Thanks for the text...I think that was the one I was thinking of. hooberus....That sounds very fascinating, I had no idea of the "pope" interpretation. I look forward to reading your upcoming thread on the subject....
• 

  Leolaia

  Just a question (for all of you): Do you think it`s right to include other texts (apocryphic and others) from the time the NT was written, into this discussion?

  Absolutely. Since the phrase "Michael the archangel" occurs only in Jude, and since Jude was himself using these other texts, it would definitely help to look more broadly at this literature to get a fuller picture of what was being alluded to. The NT did not develop in isolation of these texts.

  Today, we are totally (or mostly) cut off from the cultural world in which the NT was written. When we come across phrases as "third heaven" or "abyss" or "archangel" or "Tartarus" or "Jannes and Jambres" etc. we have no idea what these things mean from the Bible itself. But people in the first century were well acquainted with these concepts, tho they were not elaborated in the writings that came to be included in the NT. The wider literature is all that remains of this wider context, and is thus of significance in shedding light on these obscure concepts.
• 

  Cygnus

  This really turned out to be a great thread. I enjoy Nark's and Leo's posts, but find special enjoyment from reading Joe Malik's. He was extremely instrumental in helping me when I was fumbling around after leaving the Watchtower religion.

  I like to say in a succinct manner that JW's believe that Jesus serves in the role, office, and function of Michael the Archangel. But his nature is immortal and incorruptible, given the "divine quality", and angels do not possess this. I'll leave it up to others to research Judaic thought and ancient ideas of the archangel.
• 

  Cygnus

  Leo, I believe in the 1917 book, Volume VII of the Studies in the Scriptures, "The Finished Mystery," Michael is equated with the Pope. I'm sure others will produce references; I'm too tired and sore right now to track down my Pastor Russell Anthology CD-ROM and find the appropriate citations.
• 

  JosephMalik

  But his nature is immortal and incorruptible, given the "divine quality", and angels do not possess this.

  Cygnus,

  Yes this is another example of a Watchtower blunder that serves to conceal our Lord's message on the recreation. Angels are immortal naturally. They have been around for a long time and are still around. Even the definition of immortality is corrupt. It will take specific action against some such immortal beings to destroy them. This is why I urge everyone to examine the texts for themselves. Really pay attention to what is meant. By listening to the text being read on CD or tape a better grasp of it is possible. Overcome the notion that it is too complicated to grasp. That is what most religions want you to believe so that they can tell you what to think.

  Joseph
• 

  Leolaia

  I think it is important to point out some faulty arguments the Society uses, such as the following:

  *** it-1 p. 156 Archangel ***

  The prefix "arch," meaning "chief" or "principal," implies that there is only one archangel, the chief angel; in the Scriptures, "archangel" is never found in the plural.

  *** w91 2/1 p. 17 Honor the Son, Jehovah’s Chief Agent ***

  Well, the prefix "arch," meaning "chief" or "principal," implies that there is only one archangel.

  The etymological argument is fallacious because the prefix arkh- does not in fact imply uniqueness of class. To give a simple example from English, the phrase "President Bush" does not imply that George W. Bush is the only president in the entire world or is the president of the world; obviously, there are other presidents over other nations, just as there can be different archangels over different angelic divisions or over different aspects of the cosmos. If a small selection of all the literature in existence today were preserved 2,000 years from now and they happen to only mention the word "president" twice, and once in the phrase "President Bush", would we be justified to conclude that there was only one President in the whole world and that President was George W. Bush?

  The simple fact is that Bible writers did not invent the word arkhangelos; the word was already in existence and typically referred to four or seven chief angels....the term referred to a plurality of archangels from the start. This use falsifies the claim that the etymology of the word implies uniqueness. Moreover, 1 Enoch, which the author of Jude certainly knew well and cited as inspired "prophecy", uses the plural of arkhangelos in the Greek: "the four great archangels (hoi tessares megaloi arkhangeloi)" in 9:1, 4.
• 

  hooberus

  Here is the new thread specifically on WT changes

  http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/12/98641/1.ashx