In a recent video I produced, one of the commenters took exception to my statement that Jesus isn’t Michael the Archangel. The belief that Michael is the pre-human Jesus is held by Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists, among others.
Have witnesses uncovered some secret that for eons has lain well concealed in God’s word—something all the other Bible students and Bible scholars have missed down through the ages. Or are they jumping to conclusions based on a faulty premise? Just from where do they get this idea? As we’ll see, the answer to that question is an object lesson in the dangers of eisegetical Bible study.
The Official JW Teaching
But before we hop onto that rather tortuous ride, let’s first understand the official JW position:
You will notice from this that the entire doctrine is based on inference and implication, not on something which is explicitly stated in Scripture. In fact, in the February 8, 2002 Awake! they go so far as to acknowledge this:
“While there is no statement in the Bible that categorically identifies Michael the archangel as Jesus, there is one scripture that links Jesus with the office of archangel.” (g02 2/8 p. 17)
We are speaking about the very nature of Jesus, the one who was sent forth to explain God to us, the one whom we are supposed to imitate in all things. Would God really give us just one scripture, and that one, only an inference, to explain the nature of his only-begotten Son?
An Exegetical Look at the Question
Let’s approach this without any preconceptions. What does the Bible teach us about Michael?
Daniel reveals that Michael is one of the foremost princes among the angels. Quoting from Daniel:
“But the prince of the royal realm of Persia stood in opposition to me for 21 days. But then Michael, one of the foremost princes, came to help me; and I remained there beside the kings of Persia.” (Da 10:13)
What we can take from this is that while Michael was very senior, he was not without peer. There were other angels like him, other princes.
Other versions render it thus:
“one of the chief princes” – NIV
“one of the archangels” – NLT
“one of the leading princes” – NET
By far the most common rendering is “one of the chief princes”.
What else do we learn about Michael. We learn that he was the prince or angel assigned to the nation of Israel. Daniel says:
“However, I will tell you the things recorded in the writings of truth. There is no one strongly supporting me in these things but Michael, your prince.” (Da 10:21)
“During that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of your people. And there will occur a time of distress such as has not occurred since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, everyone who is found written down in the book.” (Da 12:1)
We learn that Michael is a warrior angel. In Daniel, he contended with the Prince of Persia, apparently the fallen angel who now was over the kingdom of Persia. In Revelation, he and other angels under his charge do battle with Satan and his angels. Reading from Revelation:
“And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled” (Re 12:7)
But it is in Jude that we learn of his title.
“But when Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.”” (Jude 9)
The Greek word here is archaggelos which according to Strong’s Concordance means “a chief angel”. The same concordance gives as its usage: “a ruler of angels, a superior angel, an archangel”. Notice the indefinite article. What we learn in Jude does not contradict what we already know from Daniel, that Michael was a chief angel, but that there were other angelic chiefs. For example, if you read that Harry, the prince, married Meghan Markle, you don’t assume that there is only one prince. You know there are more, but you also understand that Harry is one of them. It’s the same with Michael, the archangel.
Who Are the 24 Elders of Revelation?
Illustrations are all well and good, but they do not serve as proof. Illustrations are meant to explain a truth already established. So, just in case there is still doubt that Michael is not the only archangel, consider this:
Paul told the Ephesians:
“to whom every family in heaven and on earth owes its name.” (Eph 3:15)
The nature of families in heaven must be different from those on earth given that angels do not procreate, but it appears that some form of organization or grouping is in place. Do these families have chiefs?
That there are multiple chiefs or princes or archangels can be gleaned from one of Daniel’s visions. He said :
“I kept watching until thrones were set in place and the Ancient of Days sat down.. . .” (Da 7:9)
“I kept watching in the visions of the night, and look! with the clouds of the heavens, someone like a son of man was coming; and he gained access to the Ancient of Days, and they brought him up close before that One. . . .” (Da 7:13, 14)
Evidently, there are thrones in heaven, besides the principal one that Jehovah sits on. These additional thrones are not where Jesus sits in this vision, because he is brought forth before the Ancient of Days. In a similar account, John speaks of 24 thrones. Going to the Revelation:
“All around the throne were 24 thrones, and on these thrones I saw seated 24 elders dressed in white garments, and on their heads golden crowns.” (Re 4:4)
Who else might sit on these thrones other than the foremost angelic princes or chief angels or archangels? Witnesses teach that these thrones are for the resurrected anointed brothers of Christ, but how could that be when they are resurrected only at the second coming of Jesus, but in the vision, one of them is seen talking with John, some 1,900 years ago. Additionally, a representation similar to that just described by Daniel can be seen in Revelation 5:6
“. . .And I saw standing in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures and in the midst of the elders a lamb that seemed to have been slaughtered, . . .” (Re 5:6)
Finally, Revelation 7 speaks of 144,000 out of every tribe of the sons of Israel standing before the throne. It also talks about a great crowd in heaven standing in the temple or sanctuary before the throne of God. Therefore, Jesus, the Lamb of God, the 144,000 and the Great Crowd are all depicted standing before the throne of God and the thrones of the 24 elders.
If we consider all of these verses together, the only thing that fits is that there are angelic thrones in heaven upon which sit chief angels or archangels comprising the foremost angelic princes, and Michael is one of them, but before them stands the Lamb who is Jesus together with the children of God taken from the earth to rule with Christ.
From all the foregoing, it is now safe to say that there is nothing in Scripture to indicate there is only one chief angel, only one archangel, as the Organization claims.
Can one be a chief or ruler of the angels without being an angel oneself? Of course, God is the ultimate chief or ruler of the angels, but that doesn’t make him an angel or an archangel. Likewise, when Jesus was granted “all authority in both heaven and earth”, he became the chief of all the angels, but again, being chief of the angels doesn’t require him to be an angel anymore than it requires God to be one. (Matthew 28:18)
What about the Scripture that implies Jesus is the archangel? There isn’t one. There is a scripture that might imply Jesus is an archangel, as in one of several, but nothing to imply that he is the sole archangel, and therefore Michael. Let’s read it again, this time from the English Standard Version:
“For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God. And the dead in Christ will rise first.” (1 Th 4:16 ESV)
“The voice of an archangel” and ‘the voice of the trumpet of God’. What could that mean? The use of the indefinite article means that this isn’t talking about a unique individual, like Michael. However, does it mean that Jesus is at least one of the archangels? Or does the phrase refer to the nature of the “cry of command”. If he speaks with the voice of the trumpet of God, does he become the trumpet of God? Likewise, if the speaks with the voice of an archangel, does it require him to be an archangel? Let’s see how “voice” is used in the Bible.
“a strong voice like that of a trumpet” – Re 1:10
“his voice was as the sound of many waters” – Re 1:15
“a voice as of thunder” – Re 6:1
“a loud voice just as when a lion roars” – Re 10:3
On one occasion, King Herod foolishly spoke with “a god’s voice, and not a man’s” (Acts 12:22) for which he was struck down by Jehovah. From this, we can understand that 1 Thessalonians 4:16 is not making a comment on the nature of Jesus, that is, that he is an angel; but rather is attributing a quality of command to his cry, for he speaks with a voice like that of someone who commands angels.
Nevertheless, this isn’t enough to remove all doubt. What we need are scriptures that would categorically eliminate the possibility that Michael and Jesus are one and the same. Remember, we know with all certainty that Michael is an angel. So, is Jesus also an angel?
Paul speaks of that to the Galatians:
“Why, then, the Law? It was added to make transgressions manifest, until the offspring should arrive to whom the promise had been made; and it was transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator.” (Ga 3:19)
Now it says: “transmitted through angels by the hand of a mediator.” That mediator was Moses through whom the Israelites entered into a covenant relationship with Jehovah. The law was transmitted by angels. Was Jesus included in that group, perhaps as their leader?
Not according to the writer of Hebrews:
“For if the word spoken through angels proved to be sure, and every transgression and disobedient act received a punishment in harmony with justice, how will we escape if we have neglected so great a salvation? For it began to be spoken through our Lord and was verified for us by those who heard him,” (Heb 2:2, 3)
This is a contrasting statement, a how-much-more-so argument. If they were punished for ignoring the law that came through angels, how much more so will we be punished for neglecting the salvation that comes through Jesus? He’s contrasting Jesus with the angels, which makes no sense if he is an angel himself.
But there is more. The Book of Hebrews opens with this line of reasoning:
“For example, to which one of the angels did God ever say: “You are my son; today I have become your father”? And again: “I will become his father, and he will become my son”?” (Heb 1:5)
And…
“But about which of the angels has he ever said: “Sit at my right hand until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet”?” (Heb 1:13)
Again, none of this makes any sense if Jesus is an angel. If Jesus is the archangel Michael, then when the writer asks, “To which of the angels did God ever say…?”, we can answer, “To which angel? Why to Jesus silly! After all, isn’t he the archangel Michael?”
You see what nonsense it is to contend that Jesus is Michael? Indeed, the teaching of the Organization of Jehovah’s Witnesses makes a mockery of Paul’s entire line of reasoning?
Cleaning Up Loose Ends
Someone might point out that Hebrews 1:4 supports the idea that Jesus and the angels were peers. It reads:
“So he has become better than the angels to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.” (Heb 1:4)
They would suggest that to be better, means he had to start out as an equal or a lessor. This might seem like a valid point, yet no interpretation of ours should ever challenge Bible harmony. “Let God be found true, though every man be a liar.” (Romans 3:4) Therefore, we want to consider this verse in context to resolve this conflict. For instance, two verses back we read:
“Now at the end of these days he has spoken to us by means of a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, and through whom he made the systems of things.” (Heb 1:2)
The phrase “at the end of these days” is critical. Hebrews was written only a few years before the end of the Jewish system of things. In that time of the end, it was Jesus, as a man, who had spoken to them. They received God’s word, not through angels, but through the Son of man. Yet, he was no mere man. He was the one “through whom [God] made the systems of things.” No angel can lay claim to such a pedigree.
That communication from God came while Jesus was a man, lower than the angels. The Bible says about Jesus that he “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.” (Philippians 2:7 KJV)
It was from that lowly state that Jesus was raised up and became better than the angels.
From all we’ve just seen, it seems that the Bible is telling us that Jesus is not an angel. Therefore, he could not be Michael the Archangel. This leads us to ask, just what is the true nature of our Lord Jesus? That is a question we will do our best to answer in a future video. However, before we can move on, we still haven’t answered the question raised at the start of this video. Just why do Jehovah’s Witnesses believe and teach that Michael the Archangel is Jesus in his prehuman existence?
There is much to be learned from the answer to that question, and we’ll get into it in depth in our next video.
I’ve just now come across this video after being absent online for the past couple weeks. Beroean’s is one of my favorite sites and this article’s comments, particularly those from Chet, Frankie & Messenger are very interesting to me. I did some research recently on the Biblical phrase “call upon the name of the Lord” in preparation for my JW study. Of course in the NWT “Lord” is rendered “Jehovah” in the Christian Greek Scriptures, except in 1 Cor 1:2 where it reads “call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.” But I think many on this site would agree that in context, the other passages are also speaking about Jesus. As Meleti states in his YouTube video linked in the beginning of this article, perhaps the One who inspired the Bible is trying to tell us something. For those interested, I would like to share an article I came across in my research. It’s a treatise on the phrase “calling on the name of the Lord” by Joel Estes. I’m not endorsing this particular author. I’d never heard of him before this. But I found his article quite fascinating (albeit a bit slow to read as it’s very scholarly and detailed). Here’s a snippet: The usage of ἐπικαλέω τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου in the NT confirms its function as a technical expression for worship. At no point is the phrase used among pre-Christian Jewish writers to refer to any figures (angels, divine mediators, etc.) other than YHWH, the God… Read more »
Appreciate your post here Dan. You might also enjoy Acts 9:14. It’s pretty clear and was said to Jesus after he was resurrected. Pretty convincing that the early Christians called on the name of Jesus in prayer.
Know the answer to this! The GB claim they along with other Jehovah’s Witnesses exclusively had God’s Spirit BEAR WITNESS with their individual spirits, and that because of this they hold a special relationship with Jehovah. While at the same time the GB teaches JWs that God does not contact ANYONE in modern times. WT misapplies the meaning of a scripture in the 13th chapter of 1 Corinthians in teaching God’s spirit bears witnesses with each one those people without bearing witness through personal contact. (Witnessing without contacting. Try that JWs. And then put that time down on your time sheet. No, I don’t mean because you get not at homes. God never gets not at homes. I mean put down time without attempting to contact ANYONE, as WT teaches God did not attempt to contact the GB members or anyone else today when he bore witness with them.) Now here is an interesting point that relates to the question I ask you to answer in my first sentence. That question has not yet been given for your consideration. But before I reveal it consider this, that Watchtower does teach demons contact people today. So, I am wondering if God made WT through its own teachings, in essence, admit its leaders were contacted by demons? Because how would individual Jehovah’s Witnesses know God’s spirit bore witness with them as the scripture says, when they also believe God didn’t contact them. All the time Jehovah’s Witnesses claim they are sure of… Read more »
Is Holy Spirit God? Is it WITH, and part of the Son as well as the Father? “John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from THE SEVEN SPIRITS who are before his throne,” Revelation 1:4 ESV “From the throne came flashes of lightning, and rumblings and peals of thunder, and before the throne were burning seven torches of fire, which are THE SEVEN SPIRITS OF GOD,” Revelation 4:5 ESV “And between the throne and the four living creatures and among the elders I saw a Lamb standing, as though it had been slain, with seven horns and WITH seven eyes, which are THE SEVEN SPIRITS OF GOD sent out into all the earth.” Revelation 5:6 ESV There are no scriptures that speak of any angel having control over Holy Spirit to send it out from himself into all the Earth, or sending this SPIRITS OF GOD anywhere. In comparing those three scriptures we see Christ shares whatever Holy Spirit is with his Father, implying he shares god-ship with his Father. For the Spirits are said be SPIRITS OF GOD, and a they are also claimed to be PART OF CHRIST (metaphorically the eyes of the lamb John saw). The same type of comparison can be done with other phrases in Revelation or other Bible books, to conclude both Father and Son share that relationship of God to humans who accept… Read more »
Good morning Chet, I just love your comments about the Trinity when you spoke from my heart: “The Trinity is a huge issue in my mind. For the record, I do not believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are coequal and co-eternal. The Athanasian Creed is not my creed. The scriptures make it clear that the spirit creature whom came to earth as Jesus, was the Only Begotten Son of God. So, just what does that mean? Only Begotten would indicate something unique. This spirit creature was one of a kind. The problem here, is that we don’t really know how things work in that realm. I would be hard pressed to explain just what a spirit creature is. All I really know is that they are different from material life.” Currently I am calling on a “Trinitrine” and he knows his bible very well and he showed me this scripture Hebrews 1: 8 But about the Son, he says: “God is your throne forever and ever, and the sceptre of your Kingdom is the sceptre of uprightness. In all others translations on biblehub.com it reads: “Your throne O God” However in our NWT it renders as above. I am so, so, so confused. Is Jesus Jehovah? I dont think so, but, is he Jehovah in the spirit realm? Is everybody wrong and we are RIGHT? or are we WRONG and everybody is right. Chet I thought their was something wrong with my thinking, but thanks to you… Read more »
Jamesbrown how about this. Are all parts of yourself YOU? What about your fingers or hand, are those things part of YOU? Does the answer to that question differ with any individual you are aware of? If so, since Holy Spirit is part of God, then how could it not be God? Is it some power God gets from some place outside himself? Not ! And even WT knows better than that. It is God as surely as your hand is you. Paul wrote, “Just as a body, though one, has many parts, but all its many parts form one body, so it is with Christ.” 1 Corinthians 12:12. And what about the Father? Is it the same with him? The great mystery as WT labels the great mystery between the Holy Spirit and the Father in other religions that they cannot explain (but really they explain it) should apply to Watchtower teaching about the Bible terms Holy Spirit and God. Witnesses should be wondering how the two are separate things, a person (Jehovah), and a THING (Holy Spirit-some vague energy source as WT teaches it). Even though WT knows better. How do I know it does? Because WT teaches Holy Spirit is emanating from God. WT says it comes and is used as a power from God. Holy Spirit doesn’t have to be a separate person to be God. It is God. All parts of God are God, in the same way all parts of us are us. Thus… Read more »
Jamesbrown since you asked if Jesus was Jehovah how about this. WT teaches Holy Spirit is not God but a power coming from God.
Any part of God is God. Just
Hi Messenger. As to the God’s Holy Spirit, IMO, he is personalized because of better comprehension of his nature, to which, we humans, cannot grasp. I think, he is some kind of power/energy/information field/whatever you want – but we do not know at all. The context of many verses in Bible reveals that the Holy Spirit is part of God, He is His (Saxon genitive), He is the God’s Holy Spirit. Can you point at you finger and say: “this is Messenger”? Or, if you show your finger to someone and ask: “What is this “”, will be the answer “This is Messenger”? Probably not, but he or she says: “This is your (Messenger’s) finger”. Your finger is a part of YOU, but it is NOT YOU, because YOU are the entity consisting of all of your parts, physical parts as well as mental ones. You finger cannot think, in contrast to your brain. Messenger is complex of all his parts, and individual parts are the Messenger’s parts. Similarly, it is with the Holy Spirit. You are right; he is a part of God, no separate person. Hence, in connection with word GOD, we should use the term God’s Holy Spirit and not Holy Spirit is God. There is no definition “Holy Spirit is God” in the Bible. Nowhere. But there are plenty of terms God’s Holy Spirit – Holy Spirit belonging to God. Just as your finger has the human substance, similarly the Holy Spirit has the divine substance,… Read more »
Hi Frankie, Luke 12:10 doesn’t directly say blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is blasphemy against God himself, as you wrote above. You probably stated that because even though you refuted my thought, that thought I raised in your final comment reveals somewhere in your consciousness you probably know Holy Spirit is God. If Holy Spirit is not God, the blasphemy against it surely shouldn’t carry a heavier penalty than blasphemy against Christ. Why would it? But your stated scripture, at Luke 12: 10, actually reads, “And everyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but the one who blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven.” Why? Because they blaspheme the one who they know is God, or they reject accepting God. It’s not that they talk negatively about a power source or reject a power source. It’s they reject or speak ill of God while knowing they are doing it. As an atheist does. No atheist claims to reject some scientific power source. They claim to reject the existence of God. That’s their blasphemy. History shows many did not believe Christ was divine. But God communicated through Christ, the same as through Holy Spirit, didn’t he? But it’s only because they didn’t believe Christ was divine that Holy Spirit was sent to give them a chance to change. It is God who communicates with these people, and he continues to teach people to give them a chance to accept Christ. That’s why they… Read more »
Hi Messenger. Dear brother, thank you for your thorough respond. I will try to explain my understanding Holy Spirit through your example – your finger in my eye (but I think you love me as Christian and so you’ll never injure me :o). Your finger, your heart, your brain and other many parts are integral parts of you, they are inseparable and they all form you as a man, Messenger. Therefore, you are fully responsible for using any of your parts. In case of injury, YOU will be criminally charged for using your integral part – YOUR finger. And judge can either say “Messenger used HIS finger to injure Frankie” or “Messenger injured Frankie”. In case of God, the Holy Spirit is integral part of God, not a separate person or separate whatever. God cannot be break down into parts. God uses His Holy Spirit to enforce His intents. So if someone refuses God’s acting through Holy Spirit, such man automatically refuses the God Himself, because he or she refuses the God’s divine integral part, God’s Spirit (Luke 12:10), through which God wants to perform His intent. Jesus Christ is not an integral part of God, in contrast to Holy Spirit. And I agree with you, God acts in various ways – through Holy Spirit, through Jesus Christ and angels. You wrote: “And when one part of our body or a combination of parts of our body communicates WE communicate“. I fully agree. The same is in case of God… Read more »
Hello Frankie. Actually Holy Spirit relates to the topic of the written article. In the comment nearest the top of this page that I offer on Holy Spirit, I quoted Revelation 5:6. That scripture identifies Christ (the Lamb) in heaven WITH Holy Spirit, that is a part of him-not something coming from the Father. It’s his eyes, seven of them. And the scripture states that it is sent out into all the Earth. Since it’s a part of the Lamb’s body the Lamb evidently sends it out. Directly above that I quoted Revelation 4:5 which says those are seven spirits of GOD. After that I included this conclusion about those two scriptures, along with a third that proceeded: ” There are no scriptures that speak of any angel having control over Holy Spirit to send it out from himself into all the Earth, or sending this SPIRITS OF GOD anywhere. In comparing those three scriptures we see Christ shares whatever Holy Spirit is with his Father, implying he shares god-ship with his Father. For the Spirits are said be SPIRITS OF GOD, and a they are also claimed to be PART OF CHRIST (metaphorically the eyes of the lamb John saw.)” So you see Holy Spirit is attached to the nature of the Son as it is attached to the nature of the Father. Since I’m making the comparison between those two let me further the comparison. There are scriptures that identify the Son as complying with the Father’s wishes.… Read more »
Hi Messenger.
Sorry, dear brother, but the Holy Spirit is off-topic, because of the title of Eric’s article “The Nature of God’s Son: Is Jesus the Archangel Michael?”. The article analyses two persons – Jesus Christ and Michael the Archangel, not the Holy Spirit.
What you wrote in your latest comment is OK. I didn’t claim something else.
I responded to your comment on Chet, because I took the clause “Holy Spirit is God” as Trinitarian claim. But after our extensive discussion, the essential thing is that we both don’t believe in Trinity. I only say: Holy Spirit is not God – he/it is integral part of God. That is my view and I explained it (I was doing my best :o). The definition “Holy Spirit is God” is not in Bible. You are using it only after some logical conclusions and on the basis of various Bible information. Such combining different information can be right or not. It is thin ice.
In this case, when we are trying to interpret scriptural truth, we should keep in mind this verse: “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isaiah 55:9). None of the people owns absolute truth, neither me, nor you, Eric or Pope. So this “take care” is valid for me, for you and for everyone. May the God’s Holy Spirit help us to understand the deep God’s things.
Love, Frankie.
Well Frankie respectfully I disagree. Any differentiation or similarities between the innate qualities of Christ and Michael, who is called an archangel, relates to the article’s theme (main topic). Because that theme asks, The Nature of God’s Son: Is Jesus Michael the Archangel? Look at all the points the author brought out in discussing his topic, to lead readers to his conclusion. Since there is no scripture in the Bible that says Christ is or is not Michael the archangel, that is the only way to reach a conclusion. If there was a scripture stating Christ was or wasn’t, the article could be one sentence long. But even then there would be no reason not to offer more Bible points than that one sentence in discussing this topic. Because the Bible is silent on the topic reasoning on scriptures is necessary, even to take a side, if one is willing to take a side, without just accepting what someone else believes. Those types of conclusions, if taken on this topic, arise from reasoning on scriptures that speak to the characteristics of angels, archangels, and Christ. We have no choice but to do so. And I see no reason to stick solely with ideas that are already written in the article when doing so. The Bible speaks of Christ with the seven spirits of God, that are sent out into all the earth, as his eyes. It speaks of Christ as being divine, including that he carries the designation God. Those… Read more »
Hi Messenger.
You are the real fighter, indeed (John 2:17). That’s good. I also fully agree with Eric – Jesus Christ and Michael are not the same, they are separate persons. I confirmed it in my comment 10 days ago with statement: “In this article you presented apparent scriptural evidence – Jesus and Archangel Michael are not the same! Thanks to God for you, Eric.” So we both are on the same board. Many years ago, I dealt with wrong JW interpretation of Michael the Archangel on the basis of Heb 1. I’m grateful to Eric for thorough additional scriptural evidence.
Btw, I am very glad to find this Beroeans forum a year ago, where I found very many views similar to those of mine and where I found many humble people who are sincerely searching for the real truth. Dear brother, I wish you plenty of God’s blessings. Frankie.
Frankie, check out Acts 5:3-4
Acts 5:3-4 English Standard Version (ESV)
3 But Peter said, “Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit and to keep back for yourself part of the proceeds of the land? 4 While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own? And after it was sold, was it not at your disposal? Why is it that you have contrived this deed in your heart? You have not lied to man but to God.”
The problem with illustrations is that it is easy for us to confuse them with proof. I know we all understand an illustration’s purpose is to better explain a truth that is already established. In this case, I don’t believe we have established the truth about the nature of the holy spirit, or at the very least what we understand the truth to be.
My hand is not me, nor am I my hand. My hand is not a part of me, but it is a part of my body. Where God to endow me with a different body, one that doesn’t use hands, but has another way to interact with the physical world, I would still be me. The question then becomes, what do you and Frankie both believe concerning the holy spirit. Is it God, a part of God, or something God uses like an instrument to perform actions, or something else entirely?
Hi Eric.
Thank you for your response. As to Acts 5:3-5 I agree with you. In my previous comments on the “Holy Spirit” thread I wrote, IMHO, the Holy Spirit, mentioned in various scriptures in Bible as person, is personification, through which our heavenly Father explains Holy Spirit’s acting.
I am in position of a Neanderthal man, who is trying to grasp the TV principle. How the TV designer can explain me the theory of electromagnetic field? He possibly could use the parable, which I can understand by my limited mind.
We don’t know at all about the real nature of Holy Spirit. I only imagine it as a multiscale, multipurpose something (energy/power/information field/???) through which the God operates, something like God’s “hand”.
Therefore, I believe the Holy Spirit is not God, it is not separate divine person (I am fighter against Trinity). IMO, it is (but not necessarily) an integral part of God with divine nature (similarly like my hand has human nature). It is my current understanding of Holy Spirit. But – 1 Cor 13:12.
Love, Frankie
Hi Frankie, My last comment on this subject, not because I don’t like writing to you, but because I feel you totally understand my position already. I kept the conversation up this long for one reason only. Because WT taught us a lot of funny and unbiblical ideas about what is necessary to believe in to be a disciple of Christ, acceptable to Christ. So, because of that, I refute some funny ideas. Not because I believe you MUST KNOW THE TRUTH about it. It’s because I believe you don’t have to, to be acceptable to Christ about that sort of thing. This, to me, is one of those things. And in attempt to influence others not to be unbiblically judgmental, which might harm them, you might take it I am just arguing for the sake of argument when I am not. But my last point. Your idea that someone cannot say Holy Spirit is God, is not stated in scripture, anymore than the Bible states Holy Spirit is God. The wording does not have to be in a document to apply certain truths to items in a document. And that’s what the Bible consists of, documents. Holy spirit, in scripture is only described as coming from the Son or the Father. Since both carry the designation God, and it appears to be part of their very being (nature), then saying Holy Spirit is God is an accurate statement to make. Here’s an example of the point. Say Frankie, you… Read more »
In the example the designation supervisor would be attached to you Frankie, not your hand. In the same way the position God, could be, but doesn’t have to be attached to Holy Spirit when referring to it.
Michael This is definitely a post/video of great interest. When someone is raised a Witness, they are taught that everything the the Society say is true, even unassailable. As a person leaves, the process of sorting through all of this begins and it can take a while to figure it all out. I know that in my case, there was a period of time when I didn’t even want to discuss spiritual/scriptural matters, because I was simply exhausted by the subject. But even I had to eventually begin the task of sorting it all out. The Trinity is a huge issue in my mind. For the record, I do not believe that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are coequal and coeternal. The Athanasian Creed is not my creed. The scriptures make it clear that the spirit creature whom came to earth as Jesus, was the Only Begotten Son of God. So, just what does that mean? Only Begotten would indicate something unique. This spirit creature was one of a kind. The problem here, is that we don’t really know how things work in that realm. I would be hard pressed to explain just what a spirit creature is. All I really know is that they are different from material life. So Jehovah begot one spirit creature directly and that spirit creature became our Messiah. Apparently, and I will stress the word “apparently”, this makes Christ (I will use the term Christ from this point one, whether talking about prehuman,… Read more »
Chet I don’t know if you were addressing your comment to me (messenger) or to Meleiti. There is no one named Michael on this page, so it was probably to one of us. It’s good that leaving WT didn’t cause you to leave God. Many have when they left WT. Most of us feel uncomfortable about who we should worship with after leaving WT. The reason is because WT taught us every Christian except a JW is a false Christian, not accepted by Christ, a follower of apostate demonic teachings, and that we should have NO spiritual fellowship with them unless we are teaching them WT doctrines. But you left WT for some reason. Maybe part of that reason you left had to do with what WT teaches. If you ever investigate WT you will discover it started as an apostate religion. Two of the best books to start investigating it were written by Ray Franz. You can look up his books and purchase those online. Your skepticism is a good thing. Because everything concerning worship that is not done in faith is sin. Romans 14:23 But that doesn’t mean everyone with a different view than yours will be judged unworthy by Christ, if they worship in faith. The same chapter tells us this. “1 As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. 2 One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. 3 Let not… Read more »
My comments were not addressed to you in any way shape or form. “Michael” was related to the subject at hand.
I’ve investigated the JWs from within and without and have absolutely no use for that organization. I’ve seen lives ruined and even a number of suicides because of their “love”. My comments were simply a widow into my own reasoning in the subject.
I do find it troubling that so many Christians are convinced of the false doctrine of the triune god and this has been a subject of prayer for years. I can only assume that when Jehovah vindicates His name, this will include clarifying the issue once and for all.
There are numerous works regarding the falsehood of the trinity doctrine which I have read over the year. Jesus Is Not A Trinitarian is a great exegetical consideration of the subject. When Jesus Became God is another fine book which deals mostly with the politics surrounding the adoption of the trinity in the early church. It also points out, interestingly enough, that this set the stage for the Eastern branch of the church to begin searching elsewhere and may well have contributed to the success of Islam.
Howdy Chet! Just wanted to share a few thoughts that I learned along the way that might bring you some clarity, that it helped bring me. First, I learned that Christ never said Christians would be identified by their accuracy of doctrine, but rather that “all will know you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.” Love unifies wherever it exists. So rather than seeking any type of religion or organization that promotes a set doctrine, I’ve found it more advantageous to seek to know the body of Christ – which is made up of individuals – by the love that they manifest toward others. Secondly about Jesus – although I’m still convinced that there is no Trinity, I do believe Jesus is divine. In fact, the WT used to believe in the divinity of Christ even up to the late 80’s. I was taught that before I was baptized, and had I not, I might have never become a JW. And I missed the WTs that later proclaimed he was no longer divine, so I continued teaching it to my students until I quit Field Service in 2016. But the most interesting things I have learned about Jesus since, has absolutely transformed my worship! Here’s a couple: First, I learned that Jehovah actually gave Jesus his name! Yes it’s true, right there in John 17:11:12: “Also, I am no longer in the world, but they are in the world and I am coming to you. Holy Father,… Read more »
Hi Chet. Please allow me to respond to some of your thoughts and doubts. 1. The Trinity: IMHO, the Bible explains that Jehovah and Jesus are not coequal as to position in Heaven and competencies – John 14:28; 1 Cor 11:3; Heb 1:13; 1 Cor 15:28; Mat 28:18 (the power WAS GIVEN to Jesus by Jehovah). This eliminates the Trinity theory. You wrote: “Much of the output of literature from Christendom seems to include a plug for their Triune God. Are all of these people wrong?“ IMO, yes, they are! You wrote: ” Are they at risk of negative judgement?“ IMO, no, if they are humble enough to recognise they could be wrong (1 Cor 13:12). Only Jesus will judge in righteousness me, you, and all of them (Acts 17:31). 2. Jesus is not an angel: IMHO, yes, Jesus is very special being. Our Lord and all angels are clearly differentiated according to scriptures Heb 1:5; Heb 2:5; Heb 1:13. Michael is ArchANGEL, superior one, but angel. All things (also angels) have been created THROUGH (John 1:3) Jesus and for Him, „evidently“ with the help of Jehovah’s Holy Spirit (Gen 1:2; Gen 1:26 – … let US make … ). 3. Only Begotten Son of God: IMHO, I think, you pointed out important thing – „The problem here, is that we don’t really know how things work in that realm.“ Yes. That’s why the Bible contains image of Father and Son in order to understand relation between Jehovah and Jesus,… Read more »
Alithia,
Answer the question I raised to you in my June 2nd post, and why you claimed I made statements that I didn’t ; and then I will provide scriptures that might help you understand my June 6th post. But the granting of that understanding is not up to me.
Being exposed to all manner of vituperium on my two YouTube channels, I realize how challenging it is not to become emotionally involved in a discussion. Still, it is the yielding spirit of the Christ that should guide us.
I don’t see that Jesus’ claiming to be the messiah would necessitate excluding him from being an arch angel before or after he became the messiah. More is needed to make that jump, according to the way I see it. Also, while it’s possible the Sanhedrin would have come up with that excuse (of him claiming to be the messiah) to tell the crowd in order to kill him, I think that is unlikely also. I believe the Sanhedrin had another reason that they decided on, as a charge against Christ to tell that crowd, and they gave that other reason to the crowd. The scriptures don’t reveal what the crowds were told, but they were stirred up by the message. See Mark 15:11. Remember that by the time Christ was crucified a large portion of the crowd had already accepted him as their messiah. Others thought of that as a possibility. Hosanna, “blessed is the one who comes in the name of the Lord,” they cried as Christ entered Jerusalem. The excuse the Sanhedrin accepted was blasphemy against God, which according to Jewish law carried a death sentence. And remember scriptures state that many Jews back then were claiming to be the messiah, not just Christ. Most scriptures in the Old Testament don’t speak of the Messiah as coming from heaven or returning to heaven. When Christ spoke of his prehuman existence, and his coming again back to Earth from heaven, it had to be something new to those… Read more »
Hello dear brother Messenger. I must say I have read and reread you latest post and I am struggling, because of the lack of coherence, logic and progressiveness in the building of your arguments to understand how you arrive at your conclusions. Call me stupid! Buuuuuuuut. I think you could benefit from studying logical reasoning in argumentation. How firstly you need to establish a proposition or a few of them. Provide the evidence in support of them. Present some counter arguments and how they fail to falsify your propositions. And then demonstrate how it logically follows to the conclusions you have presented. I find this absent in your reasoning dialog. Your post is rich with expressions of,”I believe, likely, unlikely in support of your arguments. In more than a few places you use conjecture, and assumptions with larges. Then you proceed to what you describe as the main point. That the scriptures detail Jesus as coming literally from Heaven, his deity, as the creator of the universe and everything in it too and more. And finish off nicely on anyone having a different view as being an anti-christ. The whole point of this series I am guessing at this stage is to investigate thoroughly each of these claims you make and a few more I can think of in light of the weight of the entire scripture narrative. Just like SkyBlue did by posting a very useful link to a source. I would like to have your thoughts on the… Read more »
Alithia we both know that is not the reason you fail to answer that question I put to you on June 2nd after your last FALSE ACCUSATION. But keep the rhetoric coming, in arrogance you put on quite a show.
UNDERSTANDING IS NOT GIVEN TO ALL. I’LL STICK WITH MY FORM OF TEACHING.
Hello SkyBlue and all. Thanks Sky for your contribution to this discussion. The link you provided nicely provides scriptural references that exegetically help resolve the question as to whether Jesus is Michael the Archangel.
When bible translators exhibit bias in their translation to try and bolster the Trinity doctrine it should raise a red flags.
Using only scripture the link you provided clearly demonstrates the bias of the translators of John 8:58
If the words ego ime were translated consistently as in all of the other occurrences in the NT then there would be no suggestion or proof here that Jesus could have been the pre-existent Archangel Michael.
This series in getting very interesting!!! Jesus was called out to say clearly who he was!
I am sure he was clear and concise as the great teacher he was. We can know this by dusting off the layers of man made doctrines and ideas superimposed over the plain biblical teachings.
Love to all from Alithia.
Hi Meleti,
Psalmbee here,….. what you say is true about the Authority,
But in the witness of two or more, (Mr 13:32) and (Mt 24:36) would tell me that Jehovah withheld knowledge from the Son.
In the witness of one,… the Son of Man gave his authority to his servants and commanded his porter to watch. (Mr 13:34)
I would imagine that Jehovah told the Christ, the Son of God. “Hey now, look here I taught you everything you know…, but I didn’t teach you everything I Know! (Mr 12:29).
I know my comments may not be following context, but these are things I would be defending my religion with. Back in the day, the Witnesses would boldly claim with LOUD speakers, that Jehovah’s name would be known in ALL the nations, his name MUST be known! But now they are afraid to talk to you quietly on the sidewalk! They want you to watch a pre recorded video. Things have changed so much in the way they transmit. No offence to the women, but the Society seems so feminine now.
Where is Jehovah of Armies?
Anyway, can anyone relate?
Hi LQ, Thank you for sharing those insights with us. Curiously, I had the exact same thoughts when I was reading through Daniel in my personal Bible reading as well. Additionally, we can note that since the one who touched Daniel is described as one “like a son of man” the text might also be alluding to the being described earlier in the cloud judgement passages of Daniel 7: hWS hOMOIWSIS hUIOU ANQRWPOU (Dan.10:16 LXX Th) hWS hUIOS ANQRWPOU (Dan. 7:13 LXX Th) Furthermore, when we skip to Daniel 12 this being reappears again above the waters of a river and raises his right hand to heaven while pronouncing God’s time-scale. Why is this significant? Because Revelation 10 describes a being that stands on the water, raises his hands to heaven and pronounces God’s time-scale as well. What’s even more remarkable about this being is that he is described as having composite attributes that only Christ elsewhere possesses: * He is said to be clothed with a cloud, which is suggestive of the glory cloud passages in Daniel and elsewhere in the NT (cf. Dan 7:13; Mar. 13:26; Rev. 1:7) * He is said to be covered by a rainbow, which is suggestive that he uniquely represents God and his throne (Rev 10:1; cf. Rev. 4:3; Ezek. 1:27f) * He is said to have a face like the sun, which Christ is also represented as having elsewhere in the NT (cf. Rev. 1:16; Mat. 17:2). * He is said to… Read more »
Christ often referred to himself by the title Son of Man, not because he was born of a woman as a man. He was not defining his human characteristics with that title. He was identifying his divine nature. He was identifying himself to be that Son of Man written about in Daniel chapter 7.
What sealed the deal for me was something I only noticed in my personal reading.
Go back to Daniel 10 and look at this from another angle, that of the one speaking. Verses 5 and 6 describe this one who had the appearance of a man. Clothed in linen, hips girded with gold of Uphaz, body like chrysolite, face with the appearance of lightning, eyes like fiery torches, arms and feet like burnished (smooth, glossy, polished) copper, words like the sound of a crowd. Does this sound familiar? Revelation 1:12-15 has a similar description: clothed with a garment that reached to the feet, girded at the breasts with a golden girdle, eyes a fiery flame, feet like fine copper when glowing in a furnace, voice as the sound of many waters. This is none other than the Christ. Thus, in Daniel 10, this one talking to Daniel seems to be the pre-human Jesus, and in verse 13, he, the speaker, said that “Michael, one of the foremost princes, came to help me.” The speaker is not Michael, but refers to Michael as a separate entity. If the speaker is indeed the pre-human Jesus, then Michael cannot be Jesus.
“This is none other than the Christ. Thus, in Daniel 10, this one talking to Daniel seems to be the pre-human Jesus, and in verse 13, he, the speaker, said that “Michael, one of the foremost princes, came to help me.” The speaker is not Michael, but refers to Michael as a separate entity. If the speaker is indeed the pre-human Jesus, then Michael cannot be Jesus.”
I belief that is so, but my question then is:
Why needed the prehuman Jesus, Michael to pass the one of Persia to come to Daniel???
I’ve come to the conclusion that the scriptures don’t answer all the questions we have, and that its writings produce more questions without answers. That said, my answer to your question is: I don’t know. The Bible does not tell us.
The premise of your question seems to be that the prehuman Jesus would not need help to pass the prince of Persia. I’m not certain that premise is true. The same question could be asked if Michael is Jesus. Remember, Michael and his angels battle Satan and his angels. Why would Jesus need an entire army to defeat Satan and his angels. Couldn’t he do it on his own? Or, why couldn’t God just wipe out Satan and his angels with a snap of his finger? Why a war in heaven at all? These are all things that I have wondered myself and have concluded that we just don’t know enough to have the concrete answers we seek.
However, I am convinced, due to the reasons Eric outlined and this striking similarity between Daniel 10:4,5 and Rev 1:12-15 that it’s the same one being described. In Rev 1:17,18, that one identifies himself: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, and the living one, and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of the Grave.” This can be none other than Jesus.
Hi LQ,
“ However, I am convinced, due to the reasons Eric outlined and this striking similarity between Daniel 10:4,5 and Rev 1:12-15 that it’s the same one being described. In Rev 1:17,18, that one identifies himself: “Do not be afraid. I am the First and the Last, and the living one, and I became dead, but look! I am living forever and ever, and I have the keys of death and of the Grave.” This can be none other than Jesus.
I agree with you.
Thank you for pondering over my question 🙂
I look forward to the time, we all know the answers 🙂
Love
Maria
@leaving_quietly – Good catch!
Maybe this will help you understand both my comments Alithia. As a public school teacher I am ethically required to fail someone who doesn’t understand the information our subject covers. And that is just. But I’ll be damned if I would ever kill anyone for that.
No person who would is fit to judge others in Christ’s kingdom. Not that I ever asked for that job. I was chosen for it as were all who will judge there.
Hello Messenger. I think we might be taking another walk around the block on this one. I agree with you with regards to the scripture you quoted in Luke 21:8 about being careful so as not to be deceived. For this to be the case what do you think we need to do? Perhaps do as the scriptures say. Test all things making sure of the important things. 1 Thess 5:21 Examine the Spirits. 1 John 5. And the list is long as it is specific. There are many exhortations for us to apply ourselves to the task of getting to know the truth and the rewards for doing so. Paul says at 1 Corinthians 1:19. For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and the cleverness of the clever I will set aside. So I suppose it is for this reason we discuss issues such as whether Jesus is Michael the Archangel or not, and pick up along the way where this idea originated and took root in the theology of Jws, and in other religions. If the belief is human of origin and not from God, (wisdom of the wise or of the clever) then as Paul said in verse 20, using Gods word and with the help of the Holy Spirit, the “wise” and their “wisdom” will be exposed as foolishness! I think the exercise is well worth it and our efforts would harmonise nicely with the scripture you quoted in Luke 21:8.… Read more »
Alithia I can only assume you mean that the statement below, in the next paragraph, by me, is what you are referring to in claiming I said “IT DOES NOT MATTER.” That line is in your last paragraph which reads, “If as you present that in the final analysis it does not matter then everything does not really matter and Jehovah would not have sent his Son, have him experience an excruciating death for our benefit and have the bible penned and recorded for our benefit” It’s impossible to know for sure what you are referring to Alithia since you have not quoted any of my writings in your last comment. So, what is the “IT” in your statement “it does not matter?” What are you claiming I said does not matter? I guess you object to my claim,”But no one down here on Earth knows everything about scripture, and God rightly doesn’t hold that against us. If he did we all die. Jehovah’s Witnesses have been deceived as your scriptures state. Also see Luke 21:8. But because they have been deceived they won’t all die. They were not deceived in the sense scriptures say Eve was. Eve believed the Devil but she also knew she was deciding to go against God. Most Jehovah’s Witnesses are not doing that.” (messenger) If that’s what you object to I’ll add to that thought. No human is saved by knowledge. Salvation is based on something entirely different than knowledge, i.e. why scriptures claim… Read more »
Right. We cannot look to ourselves to earn salvation by how much we do or how much we learn. Not even our pinky or a hair on our head can ever qualify.
At John 5:39&40 Jesus told them “You are searching the Scriptures, because you think that by means of them you will have everlasting life; and these are the very ones that bear witness about me. And yet you do not want to come to me that you may have life.”
They made the mistake of thinking their own works would make them righteous. Yet they would not accept the simple answer that it was impossible for them to ever qualify, and look to the Christ for salvation instead. His work saves us, and not our own.
There are a couple of Scriptures that I don’t think I have ever heard them use to support their doctrine. Maybe they haven’t thought of it yet. They are actually fulfilling these instructions and not even boasting about it in the right way, or are they just following direction? I wonder about this for the sake of my loved ones and actually for all affected, including myself, I love you all!
Matthew 24: 23-26 and Mark 13: 21-23, would actually put Jehovah as commander of the chief Micha’el’ until further notice, would it not? Do I need correction? What say ye?
Psalmbee, (Micah 6:9)
Hi Meleti,
Logically for me, if I were a JW, I would be looking for other reasons to hold on to such a teaching and logical ways to back them up with scripture.
If I were to be searching for a church or an assemblage of that nature, I wouldn’t start with the one with the tallest cross or the brightest sign flashing, that says here is Jesus Christ and we know it!
Jehovah of Armies and his chief (Arch)Angel would still seem to be at the helm considering some things that have not took place yet, mainly (Mk 14:60-62) compare (Is 1:24).
I’m just rambling, putting myself in the atmosphere of a JW in Service having answers ready if I was ever questioned. Do you think you can pick up on that logic or should I fine tune the cha-nn-“el” ?
All’s been fair to medium, here, just doing my “watch duty”. How are you and the entourage?
Psalmbee….
Hi Psalmbee,
Just read your latest comment. I’m working on a video now about the nature of Jesus. There is so much more there than just whether or not he is or was an angel, even an archangel.
One thing I know is that Jehovah has handed all authority to his son. Until Jesus hands over all authority to God at the end, he’s the one in charge. What a wonderful trust the Father has in the Son.
Hello Psalmbee. I read the scriptures you quoted and if I understand you correctly, you me and all the others are in the right forum to uncover untruth and to free ourselves of what is only human teachings and not from God.
Stay well brother.
Love to all from Alithia.
Hello Psalmbee, read those scriptures you quote and if I understand you correctly we are i the right forum to uncover error and to free ourselves of the influence of what is basically only human teachings.
Stay well brother and may Jehovah bless you.
Love to all Alithia.
Trust God Psalmbee New American Standard Bible: “And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose.” God’s purpose is that all be saved, true. But he has other purposes too. One of those is that he chooses individuals to do tasks he wants them to do now and in the future. One of those future tasks is to rule the Earth one day. Even some of these chosen ones can be deceived by apostates, and if so they knowingly follow men instead of God’s calling to them, and, because of that they can lose that calling. But no one down here on Earth knows everything about scripture, and God rightly doesn’t hold that against us. If he did we all die. Jehovah’s Witnesses have been deceived as your scriptures state. Also see Luke 21:8. But because they have been deceived they won’t all die. They were not deceived in the sense scriptures say Eve was. Eve believed the Devil but she also knew she was deciding to go against God. Most Jehovah’s Witnesses are not doing that. Those that work deception will die according to scripture. See Revelation chapter 22. Most JWs don’t work deception. And if there is such a big difference between working deception and not understanding something to us, also believe that God recognizes that difference and acts on that difference. I know all JWs will not die in… Read more »
Hi Psalmbee,
Sorry for the former comment. I was dictated and I was rushed and made the fatal mistake of trusting the dictation to work accurately. What I meant to say was, that I didn’t quite understand what you are asking about. I just need a little clarification, but I can see that others got it better than I and I appreciate their insights.
Your brother,
Meleti
Hello all, nice work Eric. As you explain the Org has only assumed Jesus is Michael the Archangel.
However behind this erroneous assumption there is another reason why the Org resolves the question as to the identity of this angel in the way they do. (I am of the opinion, this is another assumption).
A reason of far more importance and consequence with regards to understanding God’s plan of salvation for mankind.
It is because the Org believes that Jesus had a pre-human existence. And so they attempt to fill in the gaps as to what Jesus may have been doing for eons of time before or after the Universe was created. (A quick reference back to good old “brother” Russell and his writings is an entertaining read around this subject.
It would be interesting to give thought to this idea in the same methodical, and progressive manner in which Tadua did with the hope series.
In any case I love your work on this topic so far, and I am looking forward to where this idea of Jesus being Michael the Archangel originated and spread.
Love to all from Alithia.
While I have listened to many debates on this, I have decided to trust Jesus’ own words on this. And he said plainly in prayer to the Father “I have glorified you on the earth, having finished the work you have given me to do. So now you, Father, glorify me alongside yourself with the glory that I had alongside you before the world was.” — John 17:4,5. And again to the Jews, ““Truly, truly, I tell you, before Abraham was born, I am!” —John 8:58.
The opposite teaching requires too many ‘wise and intellectual’ mental hops for me, whereas Jesus’ clear statements even babes can understand.
Hello SkyBLue and all others. With regards to the sayings of Jesus in John 8:58 you may need to consider actually what Jesus really said and how it should be translated or understood correctly in English. Check it out in the Kingdom Interlinear if you like, Jesus said in Greek “ego emi” or strictly literally I am. He did not say I was born, or I was created or I lived some pre-human life, but simply I am. If having a pre human existence as being alive before Abraham was born which Jesus referred to, and that is what is meant that is what the translators would have written down , if they could . Check out bible hub as follows. Except for one feeble attempt to bolster the Trinity doctrine they all say only what Jesus literally said in Greek “ego ime”! So ask yourself if you are supplying a popular yet unsubstantiated narrative not supported by scripture or teaching in the bible that Jesus had a pre human existence? See translations below. New International Version “Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” New Living Translation Jesus answered, “I tell you the truth, before Abraham was even born, I Am ! ” English Standard Version Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” Berean Study Bible “Truly, truly, I tell you,” Jesus declared, “before Abraham was born, I am!” Berean Literal Bible Jesus said to them,… Read more »
You are right when you say it’s a feeble attempt to bolster the Trinity Doctrine. So many use this as what they believe a rock-solid argument, so I was blown away to learn that this is a common phrase in Greek and this is the only place where it’s translated as the cryptic “I am”. This guy has done some great research on the subject:
https://www.biblicalunitarian.com/videos/john-8-58b
You’ve hit upon the key to it all, Sky Blue.
When I read Hebrews 1: 5 – 8 that convinced me that Jesus was not Michael. And now reading this article, Brother Wilson, makes everything fall into place. I am happy to see that you are still posting truth, logic and common sense here on Beroean Pickets, as I noticed that you’ve left Facebook. (Actually, I think I understand why, I’ve had to delete and block quite a few people who seem to think it’s their duty to “correct my errors” for leaving Watchtower World) Keep up the good work and stay strong!
I left Facebook as Meleti Vivlon, but kept my personal account. However, I might drop that as well. Debating it. One, it takes up a lot of time that can be better used elsewhere. Also, I get too many friend requests, and I usually accept them all, because I don’t know their motives. However, every day I get many “messages” from “ministers” seeking support for their foreign missions. Some even call me out of the blue via the Messenger phone app. Total strangers acting like we’re long lost friends. It’s disconcerting, not to mention, very time consuming.
There’s a ton of scammers on Facebook now, sadly.
Thank you Eric for your thorough analysis. Very useful material for reasoning when discussing with brothers trapped in Org. For me, the verses in Col 1:16, Heb 1:5,13 are “bullet-proof”, especially Heb 1:5 and Heb 1:13, where our Lord and all angels are clearly differentiated.
I only have a minor comment on Rev 4:4 as for 24 elders. IMO, the symbolic elders, as kings with crowns on thrones, could relate to human part of overall God’s family – comprising of Jehovah God, the Lamb as our Lord, angels and men. I think of Rev 5:9 (“… redeemed us to God … ”) and Rev 5:10 (“And hast made us unto our God kings and priests: and we shall reign on the earth”).
But this is not substantial. In this article you presented apparent scriptural evidence – Jesus and archangel Michael are not the same! Thanks to God for you, Eric.
Love for all picketers.
The Book of Enoch, specifically The Book of the Watchers, is revealing about this subject. I won’t get into it whether or not the text is inspired or not, but Jude and Peter refer to it. That being so, it was a text that Christ’s disciples seemed to be familiar with, regardless of how they felt about it.
What I’m getting to is this: Michael was one of many archangels, according to the text. (An interesting side note, Enoch is called Son of Man. Make of it what you will.) And Peter’s description of Tartarus seems to be taken from that text as well.
Personally, I feel it’s possible the Book of Enoch may have had its origins in a much older source. Over time it was built upon and corrupted by scribes. But it’s interesting because it explains things that were common knowledge to first century Christians and Jews, i.e. structure, hierarchy, and assignments of the archangels.
I loved this article, Eric. It’s not dogmatic at all, but an encouragement to examine and look deeper into these important things.
Thanks! I always wondered about the Book of Enoch. Now I’ll take some time to read it.
Excellent and thorough reasoning Eric🤓
Many ex jw who retain their faith in God still cling to this erroneous view of Michael =Jesus and it limits their spiritual progress away from the teachings of men. When I became a Biblical Unitarian it was like this giant piece of the puzzle fell beautifully into place.
When Christ answered the Devil as described in the following scripture he was also acknowledging that the Devil was not his god, thus not deserving of His worship. More than that, also he meant that the Devil should not have been worshiped by ancient Jews because they should not have recognized him as their god either. At Luke 4:5-8 you might read, ” And he (Devil) led Him (Christ) up and showed Him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time. 6And the devil said to Him, “I will give You all this domain and its glory; for it has been handed over to me, and I give it to whomever I wish. 7“Therefore if You worship before me, it shall all be Yours.” 8Jesus answered him, “It is written, ‘YOU SHALL WORSHIP THE LORD YOUR GOD AND SERVE HIM ONLY.’” Still we know many people worship the Devil, accepting him as their God, and that there are many gods as stated in other scriptural teachings, even by Christ. Is Christ properly a god in contradiction to Unitarian beliefs? And if so of whom would that be? Apostates or ignorant Christians? Note that Hebrews 1:6 uses a variation of the same word Christ used at Luke 4:8 that is translated in English to the word we say is “worship.” In Hebrews 1:6 the recipient of that worship IS CHRIST, the worshipers are angels. So, was Christ saying at Luke 4:8 that according to his belief only one… Read more »
Excellent reasoning, Eric. It is not possible to draw a conclusion that Jesus is Michael. As you have demonstrated, there is much evidence to indicate that he is not Michael. If he is Michael, then some scriptures are a little confusing, which will then go against 2 Tim 3 16,17, although when Paul wrote that the NT canon was not available.
There is an appendix at the back of the BT book “who Michael the Archangel ?”. However the reasoning, relying on the term archangel meaning there is only one archangel, is weak, as is the reference to his having an “archangel’s voice”.
It was interesting to note that Adventists also believe Jesus and Michael are the same.
The more I look the more JWs seem to be just a branch of Adventism. Maybe that is what history will say they were.
“You will notice from this that the entire doctrine is based on inference and implication, not on something which is explicitly stated in Scripture. In fact, in the February 8, 2002 Awake! they go so far as to acknowledge this,” That is a quote from this article. Most of Watchtower’s teachings are ITS interpretation of scriptures that do not even have the ideas they teach implied in the scriptures they cite. And as for what’s left over after that first half is removed about half of their other thoughts come from inference and applying an implied meaning to scripture, like you cannot vote and be a Christian, or you cannot smoke a cigarette and be a Christian. When I was studying with my aunt, we used to cover two pages in the Truth book in two hours quite often. Because I would question everything, bringing in alternative interpretations to which she argued against-using scriptures of course. Most often I still didn’t buy the interpretations as the only possible truths. Any other JW would have stopped my study. But because she cared for me, and because I was interested in the Bible and God, and because I was always very well prepared she didn’t drop me. After I finally accepted WT theology, I, like all the JWs I’ve ever known totally accepted what WT said it was, even when I didn’t hang my hopes on every thought they taught. Doing that we JWs were, over the years, brainwashed through repetitive labeling… Read more »
Thoroughly flawless logic. Very impressed Eric..