Sorry - that wasn’t very nice of me. I am sincerely sorry.
[quote]mse2us wrote:
Cueball, I apologize for not answering your question about why we think Jesus is Michael the archangel. I’ve been very busy at work and often times it takes me the whole work day to complete one post. I’m not sure if this has been addressed so I apologize if I’m repeating an explanation.
The Bible makes it clear that Jesus was in heaven before he came to earth. Jesus said at John 3:13 states “Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man.” And Jesus makes it clear at John 17:5 that when he was in heaven he was not God but at God’s side when he ask his Father to glorify him with the glory he had alongside his father before the earth was. Also, the Bible identifies Jesus as Wisdom at 1 Corinthians 1:24,30 so once you realize this you can go to Proverbs 8:22-30 and see Jesus in his prehuman existence and get a better understanding of God and Jesus’ relationship. In that passage you will see that Jesus in his prehuman existence is the first thing God created which harmonizes with Colossians 1:15 and and that God used the prehuman Jesus as a Craftsman or Masterworker who he created everything through which harmonizes with Colossians 1:16,17.
Once one understands that Jesus was in heaven alongside his Father then you can begin to identify who Jesus was in heaven. First the term archangel means chief or principal angel and the term archangel is only used in the singular. It would only be fitting that the firstborn of all creation who God used to create everything including the other angels and who is the image of God be given the title archangel and would be the highest ranking angel in heaven. At 1Ã? Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, which suggest that he himself is the archangel. This text shows him as descending from heaven with “a commanding call.” It would only make sence that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. If the designation “archangel” applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to “an archangelâ??s voice” would not be appropreate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.
The Bible also describes both Jesus and Michael as leading an army of angels. Revelation 12:7 states that Michael and his angels battled the dragon and its angels. So Michael is Leader of an army of faithful angels. Revelation 19:14-16 also describes Jesus as the Leader of a faithful army of angels. At 2 Thessalonians 1:7 Paul mentions “the Lord Jesus” and “his powerful angels” Matthew 16:27, 24:31 also mentions Jesus and his angels. Since God’s Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven - one led by Michael and one led by Jesus we feel that it’s logical to conclude that Michael is Jesus in his heavenly position.
Now in regards to the scripture Dmaddox asked about in Hebrews were the question is ask when has God asked and angel to sit at his right hand. This has been answered by myself and its_just_me answered this really well yesterday but I’ll answer this again. When Jesus was in heaven and Michael the archangel he was the chief or principle angel out of all the other angels in heaven but he had not yet been exalted to the right hand of God’s power.
Luke confirms this at Acts 2:33 which states:
“Therefore because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out this which YOU see and hear.”
And Jesus himself says this at Matthew 26:64 that he will be sitting at the right hand of power. So after Jesus died and went back to heaven God rewarded him for his faithfulness and did something that he had not done previously with any other angel - that is allowing Jesus to sit at the right hand of his power.
[/quote]
Oh, so there isn’t any scripture saying that Jesus is Michael. Ok. So you have then come to a conclusion using other passages that might suggest this?
I find it funny that none of the scripture you posted as evidence is “concrete”. Less concrete than the scripture we use for the existence of the Trinity, yet you are more inclined to believe Jesus is Michael.
Hebrews 1:5
"For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father.”
Please show me where in the Bible God calls Michael his son. And it needs to be clear that it’s referring to Michael. While you are at it, please show me where the Bible says Jesus is Michael.
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
Cueball, I apologize for not answering your question about why we think Jesus is Michael the archangel. I’ve been very busy at work and often times it takes me the whole work day to complete one post. I’m not sure if this has been addressed so I apologize if I’m repeating an explanation.
The Bible makes it clear that Jesus was in heaven before he came to earth. Jesus said at John 3:13 states “Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man.” And Jesus makes it clear at John 17:5 that when he was in heaven he was not God but at God’s side when he ask his Father to glorify him with the glory he had alongside his father before the earth was. Also, the Bible identifies Jesus as Wisdom at 1 Corinthians 1:24,30 so once you realize this you can go to Proverbs 8:22-30 and see Jesus in his prehuman existence and get a better understanding of God and Jesus’ relationship. In that passage you will see that Jesus in his prehuman existence is the first thing God created which harmonizes with Colossians 1:15 and and that God used the prehuman Jesus as a Craftsman or Masterworker who he created everything through which harmonizes with Colossians 1:16,17.
Once one understands that Jesus was in heaven alongside his Father then you can begin to identify who Jesus was in heaven. First the term archangel means chief or principal angel and the term archangel is only used in the singular. It would only be fitting that the firstborn of all creation who God used to create everything including the other angels and who is the image of God be given the title archangel and would be the highest ranking angel in heaven. At 1Ã??Ã? Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, which suggest that he himself is the archangel. This text shows him as descending from heaven with “a commanding call.” It would only make sence that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. If the designation “archangel” applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to “an archangelÃ?¢??s voice” would not be appropreate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.
The Bible also describes both Jesus and Michael as leading an army of angels. Revelation 12:7 states that Michael and his angels battled the dragon and its angels. So Michael is Leader of an army of faithful angels. Revelation 19:14-16 also describes Jesus as the Leader of a faithful army of angels. At 2 Thessalonians 1:7 Paul mentions “the Lord Jesus” and “his powerful angels” Matthew 16:27, 24:31 also mentions Jesus and his angels. Since God’s Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven - one led by Michael and one led by Jesus we feel that it’s logical to conclude that Michael is Jesus in his heavenly position.
Now in regards to the scripture Dmaddox asked about in Hebrews were the question is ask when has God asked and angel to sit at his right hand. This has been answered by myself and its_just_me answered this really well yesterday but I’ll answer this again. When Jesus was in heaven and Michael the archangel he was the chief or principle angel out of all the other angels in heaven but he had not yet been exalted to the right hand of God’s power.
Luke confirms this at Acts 2:33 which states:
“Therefore because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out this which YOU see and hear.”
And Jesus himself says this at Matthew 26:64 that he will be sitting at the right hand of power. So after Jesus died and went back to heaven God rewarded him for his faithfulness and did something that he had not done previously with any other angel - that is allowing Jesus to sit at the right hand of his power.
[/quote]
Oh, so there isn’t any scripture saying that Jesus is Michael. Ok. So you have then come to a conclusion using other passages that might suggest this?
I find it funny that none of the scripture you posted as evidence is “concrete”. Less concrete than the scripture we use for the existence of the Trinity, yet you are more inclined to believe Jesus is Michael.
Hebrews 1:5
"For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father.”
Please show me where in the Bible God calls Michael his son. And it needs to be clear that it’s referring to Michael. While you are at it, please show me where the Bible says Jesus is Michael.
[/quote]
I am curious as to why it is a big deal, to you, whether Jesus was Michael or not? What does it mean to you if he is, and what does it mean to you if he isn’t?
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
I am curious as to why it is a big deal, to you, whether Jesus was Michael or not? What does it mean to you if he is, and what does it mean to you if he isn’t?
[/quote]
To me it matters, because if Jesus is just an angel, my sins are still unatoned and I am condemned to an eternity in hell . . .
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
I am curious as to why it is a big deal, to you, whether Jesus was Michael or not? What does it mean to you if he is, and what does it mean to you if he isn’t?
[/quote]
To me it matters, because if Jesus is just an angel, my sins are still unatoned and I am condemned to an eternity in hell . . .[/quote]
OK, why would the sacrifice of God be the only way to atone for our sins?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
I asked this earlier, and just do not understand.
Jesus, was the arch-angel Michael 2nd in command to God, then became human, then after the resurrection was promoted to 2nd in command? You guys say it is so logical but this makes no sense what so ever.
[/quote]
It’s not as simple as just being in command, it goes much deeper than that (there’s the priestly role, judge etc). I’ll try to explain it as best as I can:
“I didn’t come from heaven to do what I want, I came to do what the Father wants me to do. He sent me” (John 6:38)
This shows that Jesus had a pre-human existence in heaven.
“I (Jesus) tell you exactly what the Father has told me” (John 12:50)
"I (Jesus) am not teaching something that I thought up. What I teach comes from the one who sent me (God). (John 7:16)
This shows that Jesus was the prominent messenger of God. He was referred to as “the Word” (John 1:1). Jesus was like a commander/messenger before he came down to earth…but he didn’t have full power/authority in heaven - that was to be given him later (on his “second coming”). It’s not just about kingship though, there’s a lot of glory/prestige that went along with it too (forgiveness of sins etc). Although Jesus was “2nd in command” pretty much all the time, not all roles/power was/is given him at once.
To sum up, Jesus had important roles in heaven before he came to earth, but after coming to earth and sacrificing himself, God gave him even more roles and glory.
It is the bible that says he was the first created, not us:
Rev. 3:14
“These are the things that the Amen says, the faithful and true witness (Jesus), the beginning of the creation by God”
Col. 1:15
“He (Jesus) is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation”
John 1:1 has already been covered on this thread…we believe the Word became flesh, and Jesus was the word. The word was with God, therefore the word was not God. There’s so much more to be said about that…
God loves us so much that he gave us his son (John 3:16), that’s what the bible says, not us. It does not say that God gave Himself. Tell me, which would be harder, to inflict pain on yourself, or to watch your son suffer? If it’s harder to do the latter, was God not showing more love? Think of the story of Abraham and God’s request/test for him to sacrifice his son (Genesis 22:1-14)
[quote]
You guys can say whatever you want to say about the translation, but until you give some background information on the guys that translated the NWT then there is nothing to discuss on the translation. Christian translations have been done by the smartest minds of each generation. Tribulus has given background on the one person possibly known to have had a hand in translating the NWT and even atheist Greek linguists think his translations are crap. [/quote]
So because the founders of our faith didn’t have Einstein-like scholarship skills, the translation and understanding is rubbish?
“At that moment Jesus said: My Father, Lord of heaven and earth, I am grateful that you hid all this from wise and educated people and showed it to ordinary people” (Mat 11:25)
“How has this man got knowledge of books? He has never been to school” (John 7:15)
“For it is written, ‘I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and I will set aside the understanding of the perceiving ones.’ Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the lawyer of this world? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world by wisdom did not know God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save those who believe” (1Cor 1:19-21)
“For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God” (1Co 3:19)
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]cueball wrote:
[quote]mse2us wrote:
Cueball, I apologize for not answering your question about why we think Jesus is Michael the archangel. I’ve been very busy at work and often times it takes me the whole work day to complete one post. I’m not sure if this has been addressed so I apologize if I’m repeating an explanation.
The Bible makes it clear that Jesus was in heaven before he came to earth. Jesus said at John 3:13 states “Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man.” And Jesus makes it clear at John 17:5 that when he was in heaven he was not God but at God’s side when he ask his Father to glorify him with the glory he had alongside his father before the earth was. Also, the Bible identifies Jesus as Wisdom at 1 Corinthians 1:24,30 so once you realize this you can go to Proverbs 8:22-30 and see Jesus in his prehuman existence and get a better understanding of God and Jesus’ relationship. In that passage you will see that Jesus in his prehuman existence is the first thing God created which harmonizes with Colossians 1:15 and and that God used the prehuman Jesus as a Craftsman or Masterworker who he created everything through which harmonizes with Colossians 1:16,17.
Once one understands that Jesus was in heaven alongside his Father then you can begin to identify who Jesus was in heaven. First the term archangel means chief or principal angel and the term archangel is only used in the singular. It would only be fitting that the firstborn of all creation who God used to create everything including the other angels and who is the image of God be given the title archangel and would be the highest ranking angel in heaven. At 1Ã???Ã??Ã? Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, which suggest that he himself is the archangel. This text shows him as descending from heaven with “a commanding call.” It would only make sence that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. If the designation “archangel” applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to “an archangelÃ??Ã?¢??s voice” would not be appropreate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.
The Bible also describes both Jesus and Michael as leading an army of angels. Revelation 12:7 states that Michael and his angels battled the dragon and its angels. So Michael is Leader of an army of faithful angels. Revelation 19:14-16 also describes Jesus as the Leader of a faithful army of angels. At 2 Thessalonians 1:7 Paul mentions “the Lord Jesus” and “his powerful angels” Matthew 16:27, 24:31 also mentions Jesus and his angels. Since God’s Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven - one led by Michael and one led by Jesus we feel that it’s logical to conclude that Michael is Jesus in his heavenly position.
Now in regards to the scripture Dmaddox asked about in Hebrews were the question is ask when has God asked and angel to sit at his right hand. This has been answered by myself and its_just_me answered this really well yesterday but I’ll answer this again. When Jesus was in heaven and Michael the archangel he was the chief or principle angel out of all the other angels in heaven but he had not yet been exalted to the right hand of God’s power.
Luke confirms this at Acts 2:33 which states:
“Therefore because he was exalted to the right hand of God and received the promised holy spirit from the Father, he has poured out this which YOU see and hear.”
And Jesus himself says this at Matthew 26:64 that he will be sitting at the right hand of power. So after Jesus died and went back to heaven God rewarded him for his faithfulness and did something that he had not done previously with any other angel - that is allowing Jesus to sit at the right hand of his power.
[/quote]
Oh, so there isn’t any scripture saying that Jesus is Michael. Ok. So you have then come to a conclusion using other passages that might suggest this?
I find it funny that none of the scripture you posted as evidence is “concrete”. Less concrete than the scripture we use for the existence of the Trinity, yet you are more inclined to believe Jesus is Michael.
Hebrews 1:5
"For to which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my Son; today I have become your Father.”
Please show me where in the Bible God calls Michael his son. And it needs to be clear that it’s referring to Michael. While you are at it, please show me where the Bible says Jesus is Michael.
[/quote]
I am curious as to why it is a big deal, to you, whether Jesus was Michael or not? What does it mean to you if he is, and what does it mean to you if he isn’t?
[/quote]
A why is irrelevant. Care to address the content of the post?
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
I am curious as to why it is a big deal, to you, whether Jesus was Michael or not? What does it mean to you if he is, and what does it mean to you if he isn’t?
[/quote]
To me it matters, because if Jesus is just an angel, my sins are still unatoned and I am condemned to an eternity in hell . . .[/quote]
OK, why would the sacrifice of God be the only way to atone for our sins?[/quote]
Because the standard that we fall short of is God’s perfect righteousness and holiness. No one less than God himself could convey that perfect righteousness and holiness to the Cross as the sinless/spotless sacrifice for our sins. Anything/Anyone less than God as perfect righteousness and holiness would not be able to stand for our atonement because no one else could ever measure up to His Perfect Righteousness and Holiness or even contain His Perfect Righteousness and Holiness. God stands apart from his creation in his perfection. An angel cannot possess the righteousness and holiness of God, so no angel no matter how elevated his position could ever suffice as the required sacrifice for all of mankind’s sins. No inferior vessel would ever convey this perfection otherwise God is no better than an angel. If the fullness of God could be contained by a mere angel, there is nothing special about God at all.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
I am curious as to why it is a big deal, to you, whether Jesus was Michael or not? What does it mean to you if he is, and what does it mean to you if he isn’t?
[/quote]
To me it matters, because if Jesus is just an angel, my sins are still unatoned and I am condemned to an eternity in hell . . .[/quote]
OK, why would the sacrifice of God be the only way to atone for our sins?[/quote]
Because the standard that we fall short of is God’s perfect righteousness and holiness. No one less than God himself could convey that perfect righteousness and holiness to the Cross as the sinless/spotless sacrifice for our sins. Anything/Anyone less than God as perfect righteousness and holiness would not be able to stand for our atonement because no one else could ever measure up to His Perfect Righteousness and Holiness or even contain His Perfect Righteousness and Holiness. God stands apart from his creation in his perfection. An angel cannot possess the righteousness and holiness of God, so no angel no matter how elevated his position could ever suffice as the required sacrifice for all of mankind’s sins. No inferior vessel would ever convey this perfection otherwise God is no better than an angel. If the fullness of God could be contained by a mere angel, there is nothing special about God at all.[/quote]
Well, let’s look at it this way. What got us into the position that we needed atonement? (Just so I don’t ask leading questions, my purpose in this post is to say that it was just a perfect man that got us into this perdicament, so wouldn’t it be reasonable to assume that just a perfect man could get us out of it?) <—eye for an eye, sort of thing.
You don’t have to agree.
And I don’t - the Standard is God’s Perfect Righteousness and Holiness - to revert to an earlier scripture you yourself used, Matthew 5 - “be ye perfect as your Father in Heaven is Perfect” - that is the standard we must met - no if’s, but’s or maybe’s - the only way we can return to that standard after we have individually chosen to sin is to individually accept God’s own Atonement that brings us to that state of righteousness and holiness required so that we can once again have fellowship with God as He intended.
And you totally ignored the point of the post - the fullness of God cannot be contained in an angel.
Can anyone explain these two scriptures to me?
Hebrews 5:8, 9
“Though being a Son, yet he learned obedience by the things which he suffered. And being perfected, he became the author of eternal salvation to all those who obey him”
How can God learn obedience? How can God be made perfect/complete?
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
And where did you get your own bible trained common sense? Watch Tower, and Watch Tower approved Kingdom Halls. I liked your smiley face though.[/quote]
Glad you liked it 
I smiled because you lot are all the same in your “accusations”. Watchtower this, Watchtower that…you use the term more than a Jehovah’s Witness does! LOL
I really don’t understand why people think that because they’ve read something on the internet (i.e. misleading websites) that it’s gospel. Since when has it been best to look to biased sources to base an opinion on something? Believe me, before I became re-instated as a Jehovah’s Witness (I had previously broken away from the religion for some years) I did plenty of shall I say “external research”…and found a load of hogwash. Half truths, lies, misquoted stuff etc etc. It’s all the same, and you can tell when someone’s been reading it, because they come up with the same old regurgitated rubbish that we’ve all heard before.
The whole irony of the situation comes from one of the ex Governing Body members (“President”) who was called Frederick William Franz. Now he, shall we say, lead a revolt against Jehovah’s Witnesses later in his life (he turned completely against the faith). Today, he’s still looked up to as one of the main people to “help free other Jehovah’s Witnesses from the cultic mind control”. He wrote the book, “Crises of Conscience”. Basically, he could be called the king of apostates (where most of the “slagging off” of Jehovah’s Witnesses comes from)…get this…he was the one who promoted the whole 1975 “end of the world” thing when he was a Jehovah’s Witness!
And here’s the best bit; even though HE WAS NO LONGER A JEHOVAH’S WITNESS (in fact, he became dead against them), and even though many look to him for “slagging off” the Jehovah’s Witnesses/and or many anti Jehovah’s Witness sites are based on his “teachings”…HE STILL DID NOT BELIEVE IN THE TRINITY! LOL
And people like Trib (no offence Trib) would have you believe that us Jehovah’s Witnesses are poor little robotic sheep with no idea of our so called “seedy” history
Some may find it quite funny, but there are actually ex-JW ex-apostate websites out there (that is: people who used to be Jehovah’s Witnesses, but turned against Jehovah’s Witnesses, but then managed to see through the lies, and came back to being a Jehovah’s Witness)…these websites help to clear up the misconceptions people have and the lies they’ve been told about Jehovah’s Witnesses. Those who’ve had the misfortune of only hearing one side of the story and started to have doubts are given a chance to have the full story.
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
And you totally ignored the point of the post - the fullness of God cannot be contained in an angel.
[/quote]
And you know this because? They are both spirit creatures.
Think about this. What happened to Jesus when he was baptized?
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
And you totally ignored the point of the post - the fullness of God cannot be contained in an angel.
[/quote]
And you know this because? They are both spirit creatures.
Think about this. What happened to Jesus when he was baptized?[/quote]
Are you really serious about this? Your logic and reason cannot be this twisted in reality, can they? Let’s look at the twisted-ness of your view of angels alone:
Facts, the highest of the angels was Lucifer - he fell and took 2/3rds of the heavenly host with him.
Conclusion - angels have the ability to break God’s law - they are imperfect!!
But, you still believe that an imperfect race of beings, who are created by God, the highest of whom is the personification of evil itself, the tempter, the great dragon himself, have the capacity to contain and convey within themselves the entirety of the power, perfection, holiness and infallibility of God himself - whom the whole universe could not contain! - to the cross and act as a substitute for all of the sins of mankind? That twisted up tale with absolutely NO biblical proof is what you honestly choose to believe?
That makes more sense to you from a biblical perspective than that God Himself took on the form of humanity and took Himself to the cross and was Himself the perfect sacrifice for our sins, so that he who knew no sin, could become sin for us?
Seriously?
Wow . . . i mean . . .WOW!
When you cannot even comprehend the difference between literal and figurative language, when your view of God is so small that one of His creations could contain His fullness . . . WOW!
when you agree that my five points are true, but your reasoning is so twisted you cannot understand what they mean based on what plain reading and reason would lead you to see . . . double WOW!!
. . . I am stunned!
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
And you totally ignored the point of the post - the fullness of God cannot be contained in an angel.
[/quote]
And you know this because? They are both spirit creatures.
Think about this. What happened to Jesus when he was baptized?[/quote]
Are you really serious about this? Your logic and reason cannot be this twisted in reality, can they? Let’s look at the twisted-ness of your view of angels alone:
Facts, the highest of the angels was Lucifer - he fell and took 2/3rds of the heavenly host with him. [/quote]
Can you supply scripture texts that you used to reach this conclusion please.
Do you know what imperfect means? It doesn’t mean having the ability to break a law.
Can you quote where I said this.
[quote]That makes more sense to you from a biblical perspective than that God Himself took on the form of humanity and took Himself to the cross and was Himself the perfect sacrifice for our sins, so that he who knew no sin, could become sin for us?
Seriously?
Wow . . . i mean . . .WOW!
When you cannot even comprehend the difference between literal and figurative language, when your view of God is so small that one of His creations could contain His fullness . . . WOW!
when you agree that my five points are true, but your reasoning is so twisted you cannot understand what they mean based on what plain reading and reason would lead you to see . . . double WOW!!
. . . I am stunned![/quote]
You seem to get surprised a lot. Not sure why. However, I do know that you put words in my mouth and that you didn’t answer my question.
Honest, we are taken aback by mse2us post. I am very glad that he is actually being honest with us, and not trying to beat around the bush. He was asked a direct question and mse2us answered it. I respect mse2us.
You answer our questions with other questions and never answer our direct questions until pushed against the wall, and then you allow mse2us to answer them. We have to put words in your mouth, Honest, because you never answer questions directly. You answer with other questions. So we presume that our statements that you never answer is what you believe in.
We are very shocked at mse2us post. Do all of the JWs beleive that post?
I ask this because its_just_me claims that Jesus was not a “mere angel” yet mse2us says Jesus is the arch-angel Michael. To me angels are angels with different titles and responsibilities. Whether your title is grunt angel or general angel still makes you an angel. This brings us back to the Hebrews verses again. He is an angel by creation. To Christians Jesus is God, Jesus’ human side was the thing that was created and not the essence of God that is in him.
[quote]dmaddox wrote:
Honest, we are taken aback by mse2us post. I am very glad that he is actually being honest with us, and not trying to beat around the bush. He was asked a direct question and mse2us answered it. I respect mse2us.
You answer our questions with other questions and never answer our direct questions until pushed against the wall, and then you allow mse2us to answer them. We have to put words in your mouth, Honest, because you never answer questions directly. You answer with other questions. So we presume that our statements that you never answer is what you believe in.[/quote]
Let me correct you here. It is never the right, in a honest, sincere discussion, to put words in another’s mouth. And secondly, how do you get some “against a wall” in a internet discussion?
[quote]We are very shocked at mse2us post. Do all of the JWs beleive that post?
I ask this because its_just_me claims that Jesus was not a “mere angel” yet mse2us says Jesus is the arch-angel Michael. To me angels are angels with different titles and responsibilities. Whether your title is grunt angel or general angel still makes you an angel. This brings us back to the Hebrews verses again. He is an angel by creation. To Christians Jesus is God, Jesus’ human side was the thing that was created and not the essence of God that is in him.[/quote]
You do realize that at John 1:18 it says that no man has seen God, right?
And do you want to quote its_just_me description and mse2us’ description, because, to me, they seem to agree.
[quote]its_just_me wrote:
<<< And people like Trib (no offence Trib) would have you believe that us Jehovah’s Witnesses are poor little robotic sheep with no idea of our so called “seedy” history >>>[/quote]
Don’t worry about me Pal. I can take it =]
Now you went n brought up Ray Franz, whose book you may by now not be shocked to learn I also owned. I have never ever been to an ex JW website or an anti JW site up to my typing this post, ever in my life, even once. I had forgotten about Ray Franz, but now I’ll probably go and refresh my memory about that whole shakeup of the late 70’s early 80’s. One thing I will promise is that it’s you who haven’t gotten the straight story on that whole deal.
One thing that Mse2us has said that’s true is that experience alone that doesn’t answer to God’s word is not evidence. If it were then the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints would be the world storehouse of truth with their “burning in the bosom”. (another story).
I already said I’ve personally known 2 ex JW’s who did repent of their false gods to worship the one true God one of which was disenchanted with the 1975 debacle. I’ve also known at least 1 lady that I can remember that left the watchtower and fell into wholesale unbelief. Those are instructive stories worth knowing about, but in themselves prove nothing. What makes Ray Franz significant is that he had first hand experience with the dictatorial stranglehold that the governing body held over it’s members.
The saddest thing about brainwashed people is that they’re the very last ones to find out they are. Every particle of religious belief you have and anything related, has been bottle fed to you by the WB&TS. If you doubt this just see what happens if you or anybody else tries to believe ANYTHING different. They don’t even want you in the same room with anything questioning them.
After I was born again the whole Deity of Christ/Trinity thing didn’t even come up for probably the better part of a year. It just didn’t occur to me to consciously think about it in those terms though I had done TONS of reading in the New King James Bible I was given.
I wound up at a Bible study in somebody’s house I had met and the subject was “Who is God”. The guy leading it (Who was a Mexican immigrant named Mike. Now that I think about it my early days as a Christian were very diverse) led us in a very nice prayer and started in on “who does God Himself say the He is?” At some point it came up that there were groups that claimed to believe the Bible, but didn’t believe that Jesus was God. I was genuinely befuddled. Like, what? Of course Jesus is God. That was the first time I had ever specifically thought it about it like that. It just came naturally.
In the next several years I read everything by anybody I could get my hands on. Including the watchtower. I arrived at what I believe now after prayerfully considering hundreds of views on everything with the only real presupposition being that the Bible alone and in it’s entirety is the plenary verbal written Word of God though I didn’t know to state it that way when I started. There are still some areas I’m not sure about. I’m allowed that.
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
You do realize that at John 1:18 it says that no man has seen God, right?[/quote]
You do realize that John 1:1 says Jesus is God, right?