i must admit that as a jw i never really swallowed this belief maybe because i was so young when i was really a staunch jw.
i would have born-again christians tell me that it was impossible for jesus and michael to be the same person and that jw's invented this doctrine.
fast forward to 2004 while i was reading a book on jesus i noticed that some of the early church fathers thought michael was jesus christ i almost fell out of my chair.
The only basis upon which I can accept it is if you take the word "angel" to merely mean messenger or herald and apply that directly to the specific office of the "Word".
LT, how would this ever apply to Jesus? I dont recall that in scripture.
I don't hold that opinion, but I'm not going to fall out with my brethren who do.
Yeah but I'd have a "pocket knife" to grind with them
EW: (not of the axe grinding class)
i must admit that as a jw i never really swallowed this belief maybe because i was so young when i was really a staunch jw.
i would have born-again christians tell me that it was impossible for jesus and michael to be the same person and that jw's invented this doctrine.
fast forward to 2004 while i was reading a book on jesus i noticed that some of the early church fathers thought michael was jesus christ i almost fell out of my chair.
"No one has ascended into heaven except the one who descended from heaven, the Son of Man who is in heaven
Nark, what text is this from??
edited to add; nevermind I found it.
i must admit that as a jw i never really swallowed this belief maybe because i was so young when i was really a staunch jw.
i would have born-again christians tell me that it was impossible for jesus and michael to be the same person and that jw's invented this doctrine.
fast forward to 2004 while i was reading a book on jesus i noticed that some of the early church fathers thought michael was jesus christ i almost fell out of my chair.
That wouldn't be my view, as it presents a problem with Trinity.
I prefer the opinion that he "extended down" to earth, choosing to limit himself, whilst remaining fully in union with godhead.
I see I was quick to seperate the trinity. My answer is in light of "splittting hairs" as to Jesus/Michael. Its funny the last time I tackled this was with my elder study last year.
I was quick to point out to him what came down from heaven. We must consider, John tells us the Logos becomes flesh and tabernacled among us. I do not equate the logos with an angel.
What I also found intersting is Jo. 1:11 says of the logos, " he came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him" .......at what point did mankind belong to an angel as being his own?
If the logos is and angel then that puts an angel in the creative process. Not the created.
Earnest suggests, it is merely a title rather than a designation of substance, there is little problem with that.I have problems with that as well, such as "a god."
i must admit that as a jw i never really swallowed this belief maybe because i was so young when i was really a staunch jw.
i would have born-again christians tell me that it was impossible for jesus and michael to be the same person and that jw's invented this doctrine.
fast forward to 2004 while i was reading a book on jesus i noticed that some of the early church fathers thought michael was jesus christ i almost fell out of my chair.
...the quote I referenced was talking about their being no need for a saviour if Jesus was not Michael
I understand your reasoning. Further, Jesus redemption is basterdized by WT doctrine because they have Jesus being raised as a spirit. Not a fleshly resurection, thus perpetrating a colossal fraud of Jesus finding another body with matching flesh wounds.
The WT has the audacity to claim if Jesus rose in the "flesh" he would be "taking back the ransom" hence the fraudulent apperances.
I perceive 'archangel' to be a title rather than a nature (such as human, spirit etc.). As such the question regarding what happened to Michael the Archangel if he is Jesus is the same as asking what happened to the pre-existent Jesus when he became flesh.
The JW cannot have Jesus on earth with a dual nature. With that Michael has to be out of the picture for the earthly Jesus to exist. Remember JW doctrine Jesus was Just a man. Also, after his death, his body turned into gases so Jesus is gone forever, now Michael has to continue on in heaven.
The angels in Noahs day were able to take on bodies (and have a dual nature) and leave without changing natures. But Jesus is somehow unable to do this?????
what happened to the pre-existent Jesus when he became flesh.
Its my belief Jesus was not in heaven when he was on earth, and it was Jesus blood that saves not Michaels. And Jesus not Michael is above all authority named. Ephesians 1:20
i must admit that as a jw i never really swallowed this belief maybe because i was so young when i was really a staunch jw.
i would have born-again christians tell me that it was impossible for jesus and michael to be the same person and that jw's invented this doctrine.
fast forward to 2004 while i was reading a book on jesus i noticed that some of the early church fathers thought michael was jesus christ i almost fell out of my chair.
That's anti-intellectual paranoia a la Watchtower wherein they realize that by someone else pointing out obvious rational things the masses just might realize the glaring holes in WT's theology
Well said. Further, if Michael is not Jesus in WT land, then what will the WT do with Jesus? This follows suite with what Russell did with eternal punishment and sin. By doing away with these, there really is not a need for a "real" savior.
The JW really has no answer for what happened to Michael, because we all know Christ can not have a dual nature to "float" WT doctrine. They have all kinds of excuses for what happened to Michael.
Discussing the scriptural standpoints is almost irrelevant. ie "a god", all [other] things, "firstborn", to get the JW to work out the mechanics of what came down from heaven, will corner the JW into a problem of what to do with Michael. As you stated "someone else pointing out obvious rational things "
so the prelude to this wee trip starts with work - doesn't it always.. as part of my recent job change i had to write a paper that needed agreement with most of the local authorities (health board, council - which is kinda like our version of city hall, etc.
) before it gets submitted to the ministers at the scottish parliment at the end of december.. well, after one long round of consultation (during which i produced a 39 page consultation document), another few weeks creating the first draft (another 27 pages) i was all ready to go to press the next day when i got an eleventh hour email (at 5:30pm, just before i went home).
it changed everything!
We have folks from all backgrounds but with a shared experience - the Borg.Cheers, Ozzie
Yeah, me too!
I could see it now
LittleToe BA in B-----essing
Edited to add.... you know Im just kidding ya bro
i must admit that as a jw i never really swallowed this belief maybe because i was so young when i was really a staunch jw.
i would have born-again christians tell me that it was impossible for jesus and michael to be the same person and that jw's invented this doctrine.
fast forward to 2004 while i was reading a book on jesus i noticed that some of the early church fathers thought michael was jesus christ i almost fell out of my chair.
The Wt has no problem with the 144k going to heaven. What part of their flesh is going to manifest a spirit to achieve this? (according to their doctrine)
Somewhere along the line they'll need a spirit to accomplish this.
"Reasoning from the scriptures" page 385;
"Thus, after a person dies, his spirit does not exist as an immaterial being that can think and carry out plans apart from the body"
so the prelude to this wee trip starts with work - doesn't it always.. as part of my recent job change i had to write a paper that needed agreement with most of the local authorities (health board, council - which is kinda like our version of city hall, etc.
) before it gets submitted to the ministers at the scottish parliment at the end of december.. well, after one long round of consultation (during which i produced a 39 page consultation document), another few weeks creating the first draft (another 27 pages) i was all ready to go to press the next day when i got an eleventh hour email (at 5:30pm, just before i went home).
it changed everything!
I hope to finish my Diploma in Theology and Biblical Studies next year, also.
Ross,
does this mean you'll be signing posts' like er..... ah..... "scholar" does
And telling us all about Wt chronology
i must admit that as a jw i never really swallowed this belief maybe because i was so young when i was really a staunch jw.
i would have born-again christians tell me that it was impossible for jesus and michael to be the same person and that jw's invented this doctrine.
fast forward to 2004 while i was reading a book on jesus i noticed that some of the early church fathers thought michael was jesus christ i almost fell out of my chair.
Ellderwho, re: Col. 1:15Obviously you hold that verse as literal, not figurative?Yes.
- Gen. 41:51-52, "And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh: For, said he, God hath made me forget all my toil, and all my father?s house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction" (NASB)
- Jer. 31:9, "...for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn (NASB)."
Green, do you feel the above would be a "figurative" or "literal" read?
Edited to add: Leo, I hope I can learn as much as you've forgotten. Thanks again. EW
i must admit that as a jw i never really swallowed this belief maybe because i was so young when i was really a staunch jw.
i would have born-again christians tell me that it was impossible for jesus and michael to be the same person and that jw's invented this doctrine.
fast forward to 2004 while i was reading a book on jesus i noticed that some of the early church fathers thought michael was jesus christ i almost fell out of my chair.
Ellderwho,Colossians 1:15 says about the Christ, "He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation." NASB
Green,
Obviously you hold that verse as literal, not figurative?
