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.
[…] Kaynak: beroeans.net […]
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… 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… 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… 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… 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… 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… 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… 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… 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… Read more »
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… 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… Read more »
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… 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.
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… Read more »
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… 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… Read more »
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… 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?“… 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… 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… Read more »
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… 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… 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… 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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… 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… Read more »
@leaving_quietly – Good catch!
“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… Read more »
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,… Read more »
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… 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… 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… Read more »
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… 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
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… Read more »
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.
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.
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)… Read more »
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 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… Read more »
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… Read more »
You’ve hit upon the key to it all, Sky Blue.
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… 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
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… Read more »
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… Read more »
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;… 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… Read more »
“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… Read more »
Thoroughly flawless logic. Very impressed Eric..