Thoughting again!....oh no, is that allowed?

[Brakelite]

The founders of the JWs went to great effort to deny Christ, creating their own corrupted version of scripture called the New World Translation that alters all passages that equate Jesus to God. Not much different from the Koran in that respect.

And no-one on this thread proposing that Jesus is Michael is denying, as JWs do, the divinity and Sonship of Christ. Again, just address the issue and stop introducing and dwelling upon straw men.

 

[Amazed@grace]

1st I'll call Jehovah's witnesses accursed because denying that Jesus is Lord is a fundamental element of their faith, while believing Jesus is Lord is a fundamental element of true Christianity. We are all accursed, at enmity with God and children of wrath until we are born again of His Spirit. That's not my idea, but scriptures ' teaching.
2nd I appreciate the facts about the author of the NWT, but the JPS Tanaach is actually translated in the same fashion. Though it only includes the books of the Old Testament, the Hebrew scholars who translated it changed every messianic passage that points to a fulfillment in Jesus Christ in support of their rejection of Him. At least those authors were honest enough to place footnotes on these corruptions that usually state that the true translation is uncertain or unknown. As the Tanaach varies from the septuagint, an early Hebrew translation to Greek written some where between 100 and 300 years before Christ, it's safe to say that modern Jewish scholars don't trust the ancient Jewish scholars who wrote it.
With regard to the millennium there are things hidden from the angels that involve them and it probably isn't appropriate to discuss them as there are no explicit doctrines about it included in scripture, just hints.
Let me leave you with two verses and a question to simply consider.
“Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Matthew 24:29
Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? 1 Corinthians 6:3
How are men who have not lived like Angels qualified to judge them? Jesus said that in the resurrection we shall be like Angels and not given in marriage, but will we understand them, what motivates them, what the limitations of their authority was, and their concept of justice?

To my understanding the stars that fall from heaven in that passage is s reference to angels.
STARS ARE ANGELS IN THE BIBLE

Re: we shall judge the angels, that is a topic long debated
Jesus was made a little lower than the angels. Hebrews 2

How would humans then be worthy of sitting in judgement of God's emissaries?
Unless it is the fallen angels and after we are placed in our seats of authority in the earthly kingdom of God.
It's a wait and see I think.

 

[Enoch111]

Please show for example why Michael, despite all the evidence to the contrary, cannot be the OT name of that very same eternal Son of God... Without any presumptions.

Here's why Michael cannot possibly be Jesus, the eternal Son of God.

But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. (Daniel 10:13)

Who are these "princes" (as distinct from the kings of Persia)? The context shows that they are NOT human rulers, but angelic rulers from among the "thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers" (the hierarchies of angels). It would appear that "the prince of the kingdom of Persia" was a powerful angelic being who actually withstood the angel who was speaking with Daniel. Therefore Michael came to his help. Another "prince" is also mentioned below -- the prince of Grecia (Greece).

But what is more to the point is that Michael is only one of the "chief princes" meaning the archangels. So there are other archangels (not mentioned in Scripture, but named in the book of Enoch) equal to Michael.

So Michael is DEFINITELY NOT the chiefest of all the archangels. But he is called "the prince of thy people" (meaning the archangel assigned to Israel and the Jews). And since Michael recognizes that there is a LORD above him, who will deal with Satan, it should be obvious that all this talk about Michael being Jesus is ABSOLUTE AND TOTAL NONSENSE. In fact it is heretical.

 

[michaelvpardo]

No-one is denying that quote, He's the eternal Son of God as the bible asserts.
What you need to do is get rid of the straw man arguments and address the issue. Please show for example why Michael, despite all the evidence to the contrary, cannot be the OT name of that very same eternal Son of God... Without any presumptions.

Ok, fine, but I'm just going to give you a few verses of scripture. I can't give you His Spirit, that's God's job.
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made John 1:1-2
If you don't believe that the Angel's are created beings there's nothing that I can do for you, but all the host of heaven was created on the 4th day.
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Genesis 1:14-19
If you have even the simplest understanding of cosmology and the nature of stars, it's pretty clear that balls of gas transforming elements through thermonuclear reactions don't rule anything. They're inanimate objects. But if you're spiritual, you should understand that the truth of those verses can only be spiritual in nature and that their meaning is obvious.

 

[Brakelite]

Here's why Michael cannot possibly be Jesus, the eternal Son of God.

But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. (Daniel 10:13)

Who are these "princes" (as distinct from the kings of Persia)? The context shows that they are NOT human rulers, but angelic rulers from among the "thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers" (the hierarchies of angels). It would appear that "the prince of the kingdom of Persia" was a powerful angelic being who actually withstood the angel who was speaking with Daniel. Therefore Michael came to his help. Another "prince" is also mentioned below -- the prince of Grecia (Greece).

But what is more to the point is that Michael is only one of the "chief princes" meaning the archangels. So there are other archangels (not mentioned in Scripture, but named in the book of Enoch) equal to Michael.

So Michael is DEFINITELY NOT the chiefest of all the archangels. But he is called "the prince of thy people" (meaning the archangel assigned to Israel and the Jews). And since Michael recognizes that there is a LORD above him, who will deal with Satan, it should be obvious that all this talk about Michael being Jesus is ABSOLUTE AND TOTAL NONSENSE. In fact it is heretical.

You need to rethink your understanding of that phrase, one of the chief princes. The original language offers a different perspective.

 

[Brakelite]

Ok, fine, but I'm just going to give you a few verses of scripture. I can't give you His Spirit, that's God's job.
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made John 1:1-2
If you don't believe that the Angel's are created beings there's nothing that I can do for you, but all the host of heaven was created on the 4th day.
14 Then God said, “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs and seasons, and for days and years; 15 and let them be for lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth”; and it was so. 16 Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. 17 God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, 18 and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 So the evening and the morning were the fourth day. Genesis 1:14-19
If you have even the simplest understanding of cosmology and the nature of stars, it's pretty clear that balls of gas transforming elements through thermonuclear reactions don't rule anything. They're inanimate objects. But if you're spiritual, you should understand that the truth of those verses can only be spiritual in nature and that their meaning is obvious.

I only got as far as the first few lines before finding another straw man. Who is denying that angels are created beings?

 

[michaelvpardo]

And no-one on this thread proposing that Jesus is Michael is denying, as JWs do, the divinity and Sonship of Christ. Again, just address the issue and stop introducing and dwelling upon straw men.

Michael is one of the heavenly host, all of whom were created by the Word, who became flesh. (Joshua (Jesus) of Nazareth). Are you suggesting that the Word first created Himself as Michael and then recreated Himself as Jesus?

 

[michaelvpardo]

I only got as far as the first few lines before finding another straw man. Who is denying that angels are created beings?

Any and all that think the angel named Michael is Jesus. Jesus is not created, but creator.
Btw, you appear to have a vision defect. I stopped arguing on this forum years ago. I just answer questions for those with an ear to hear and use the convenience of the forum for prophesy. Since these forums are visited regularly by professing Christians with outlandish ideas not explicitly stated in scripture, but created from cherry picked verses, I just assume that such people are biblically ignorant saints or tares.

 

[Amazed@grace]

It wasn't Rome that spawned the Jehovah's witnesses or the Mormons, it was Free Masonry. Free Masonry concerns itself with the symbolism of scripture, not the plain meaning of text and is a form of gnosticism. Most of the modern cults were founded by Free Masons who equate all religious systems that believe in a god and a resurrection. SInce they have no regard for the plain meaning of the biblical text, their members have been frequently known to create their own religious systems.

Jehovah's witnesses were started,founded, by Charles Taze Russell in 1872.

 

[quietthinker]

No-one is denying that quote, He's the eternal Son of God as the bible asserts.
What you need to do is get rid of the straw man arguments and address the issue. Please show for example why Michael, despite all the evidence to the contrary, cannot be the OT name of that very same eternal Son of God... Without any presumptions.

I'm persuaded the capacity is not there because the willingness is not there.

 

[quietthinker]

Any and all that think the angel named Michael is Jesus. Jesus is not created, but creator.
Btw, you appear to have a vision defect. I stopped arguing on this forum years ago. I just answer questions for those with an ear to hear and use the convenience of the forum for prophesy. Since these forums are visited regularly by professing Christians with outlandish ideas not explicitly stated in scripture, but created from cherry picked verses, I just assume that such people are biblically ignorant saints or tares.

with respect michaelvp....do you understand what 'straw man' means?

 

[michaelvpardo]

Jehovah's witnesses were started,founded, by Charles Taze Russell in 1872.

That's nice. So what's your point?

 

[michaelvpardo]

with respect michaelvp....do you understand what 'straw man' means?

It's a label used to identify a false argument but I stopped arguing with the kiddies a long time ago. I just ask questions, answer questions, and occasionally give prophesy or encouragement according to my faith and my calling. I don't debate, my logic is mathematical, not an exercise in didactic and when I teach it is from scripture or from science applied to scripture as I've been taught by the Holy Spirit. This isn't a seminary, it's an ecumenical discussion forum and the name of the site is a misnomer.

 

[Amazed@grace]

That's nice. So what's your point?

That the prior claim the Mason's started the "cult" is mistaken.

 

[michaelvpardo]

That the prior claim the Mason's started the "cult" is mistaken.

Free Masonry predates 1872 by a number of centuries. The lodges don't claim the founder as one of their own, but there's a stigma upon Charles Taze Russel for making prophesy that never came true as well as his bizarre notions about the pyramids. Would you claim some fruitloop as one of your own? You don't have to read any pop expose on Free Masonry to learn what they are fundamentally about. There are dozens of books written by Free Masons about their symbology, their practices, their prophesies, and their legends, many available for free digitally. It's a secret society whose members take an oath on penalty of death (unless you can hold your breath for 12 hours) to keep secret, yet the pride of self righteousness keeps them from keeping their mouth shut and their pens silent.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Here's why Michael cannot possibly be Jesus, the eternal Son of God.

But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. (Daniel 10:13)

Who are these "princes" (as distinct from the kings of Persia)? The context shows that they are NOT human rulers, but angelic rulers from among the "thrones, dominions, principalities, and powers" (the hierarchies of angels). It would appear that "the prince of the kingdom of Persia" was a powerful angelic being who actually withstood the angel who was speaking with Daniel. Therefore Michael came to his help. Another "prince" is also mentioned below -- the prince of Grecia (Greece).

But what is more to the point is that Michael is only one of the "chief princes" meaning the archangels. So there are other archangels (not mentioned in Scripture, but named in the book of Enoch) equal to Michael.

So Michael is DEFINITELY NOT the chiefest of all the archangels. But he is called "the prince of thy people" (meaning the archangel assigned to Israel and the Jews). And since Michael recognizes that there is a LORD above him, who will deal with Satan, it should be obvious that all this talk about Michael being Jesus is ABSOLUTE AND TOTAL NONSENSE. In fact it is heretical.

Excellent post.

 

[Amazed@grace]

Free Masonry predates 1872 by a number of centuries.

Yes. Which is why the claim the FM's started founded, the JW's is patently false.

The lodges don't claim the founder as one of their own, but there's a stigma upon Charles Taze Russel for making prophesy that never came true as well as his bizarre notions about the pyramids. Would you claim some fruitloop as one of your own? You don't have to read any pop expose on Free Masonry to learn what they are fundamentally about. There are dozens of books written by Free Masons about their symbology, their practices, their prophesies, and their legends, many available for free digitally. It's a secret society whose members take an oath on penalty of death (unless you can hold your breath for 12 hours) to keep secret, yet the pride of self righteousness keeps them from keeping their mouth shut and their pens silent.

Many claim to be prophets making prophecies.

None of what you've said above means Mr.Russel was at all what you claim about him.

Charles Taze Russell - Wikipedia

Evidence Charles Taze Russell was not a Freemason

 

[quietthinker]

It's a label used to identify a false argument but I stopped arguing with the kiddies a long time ago. I just ask questions, answer questions, and occasionally give prophesy or encouragement according to my faith and my calling. I don't debate, my logic is mathematical, not an exercise in didactic and when I teach it is from scripture or from science applied to scripture as I've been taught by the Holy Spirit. This isn't a seminary, it's an ecumenical discussion forum and the name of the site is a misnomer.

hmmmm, I see you have a high opinion of your logic!

 

[Ronald David Bruno]

1st I'll call Jehovah's witnesses accursed because denying that Jesus is Lord is a fundamental element of their faith, while believing Jesus is Lord is a fundamental element of true Christianity

I know and am close to Jehovah Witnesses, I have family members whom I love and love me in return.
As a born again Christian for 30 years and a Berian at heart, I have addressed many of the misinterpretations and have also offered corrections to no avail. But I will tell you for certain I have questioned them about the very question, "Is Jesus Lord? They answered yes. They just put the Father above Him. They do believe in a works salvation and sadly are uncertain of theirs as they try to be obedient to everything the Bible says ... loving folks ... just deprived of many things we all enjoy as Christians. They believe that Jesus died for our sins and rose on third day. Did Jesus have a stipulation in His offer for eternal life? Was it something more than faith? Many Christians believe that faith without works is dead and so work out their salvation ( though they misunderstand that it is the Lord who works through you). Sentence them to be accursed? That is up to God. It is not for us to say who will go to heaven or who will be condemned to hell. I just think that the Holy Spirit does not grow churches that teach such doctrines as the JW's or Mormons. Remember the letters to the Seven churches, only two were on track, the rest criticised and warned to repent. LORD HAVE MERCY.

JPS Tanach is actually translated in the same fashion.

Did not know that. It is a defense mechanism to deny and reject something that does not fit into your way. We are rebellious sinners.
Jews have been blinded to this day, but will be saved (Rom.11)

Immediately after the tribulation of those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from heaven, and the powers of the heavens will be shaken. Matthew 24:29

Angels were sometimes referred to as stars. But a meteor shower could easily be interpreted as stars falling ... or even misiles.

How are men who have not lived like Angels qualified to judge them?

We will be perfected in our resurrected bodies. Sin or confusion will not get in the way of making just and wise decisions. It will probably be simple. Were they with Christ or with Satan? -? Sounds like a no brainer.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Yes. Which is why the claim the FM's started founded, the JW's is patently false.

Many claim to be prophets making prophecies.

None of what you've said above means Mr.Russel was at all what you claim about him.

Charles Taze Russell - Wikipedia

Evidence Charles Taze Russell was not a Freemason

Would you rather I just called him antichrist according to the biblical definitions? Who are you defending, the Cultic Jehovah's witnesses, or Free Masonry and it's pagan roots?