Jesus Is Michael

Dedicated to the scholarly study of the bible as text and the discussion thereof

Moderator: Moderators

Online
User avatar
tam
Prodigy
Posts: 4226
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 5 times
Contact:

Re: Jesus Is Michael

Post #11

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
DavidLeon wrote:
Sun Jun 28, 2020 11:36 am
For some reason, which I could never quite understand, it seems extremely difficult for some people, especially skeptics, to understand that Jesus and Michael are the same.
I cannot speak for anyone else, but I will tell you why I cannot accept this interpretation (and yes, it is an interpretation, just as the trinity is an interpretation):

Christ does not teach this of Himself.

He could have made a simple statement if it were true (same with the trinity). But He does not teach it. Even in Revelation, He is referred to as Himself (Jaheshua - though most texts will write Jesus). Why would Christ be referred to as both in the same book/place after He has already returned to heaven? Yes, Michael is in revelation, but not as the Christ. Michael is never described as the Lamb of God, or as the Truth, or as the Word, or the Way, or the Son of God, or the High Priest, or the King (nor as the King of Kings and Lord of lords), etc.

Just as Christ does not teach that He is part of a triune God, Christ does not teach that He is the arkangel Michael.


Christ is the Son of God. The Word. The Life. The Way. The Truth. The firstborn. The Amen. The Faithful and True Witness. His name is Jaheshua. <-these are things that He taught (and teaches still).

He does not teach that He is Michael.

Christ does not teach - anywhere - that He is the archangel Michael. Since He (Christ) is the One to whom I listen and obey, I will continue to listen to Him and accept His word/teaching on this (and any other) matter.

"This is my Son, whom I have chosen. Listen to Him."
Lets look at the facts regarding Jesus and Michael.
Sure.
1. Jesus existed in heaven before he came to earth. Proverbs 8:22 / John 1:1,3, 14; 3:13; 8:23, 58; 17:5 / Colossians 1:15-17 / 1 John 2:13 / Revelation 3:14 all speak of Jesus’ existence before the world began, in fact before anything was created Jesus was created. Before Heaven, the heavens, the Earth, and of course, man. He is the firstborn of creation, the beginning of creation, he came from somewhere other than this world, he descended from heaven. There can be no doubt that he had a pre-human existence in heaven before he came to Earth as the man Jesus Christ.
Indeed. But many angels (including other princes - Michael is one) existed in heaven before Christ came to earth. There is no connection between Christ having existed in heaven before coming to earth - and the idea that Christ is Michael.

2. Jesus’ position in heaven before he came to the earth must have been an important one, considering he was the first of Jehovah’s creation and all things were created through him and for him. (Proverbs 8:22 / John 1:3) That means not only the heavens and earth as we know them but the angels and heaven as well. Jesus is referred to as the "word of God," this means he is the spokesperson. (John 1:1) As the spokesperson for Jehovah God we can assume that when an angel performed some important task on earth, like guiding and protecting the early Israelites from Egypt or taking the physical form of men in performing an important task, it was likely Michael as he existed before he came to earth as Jesus.
A - You're basing this point on an assumption.

Are there not four angels holding back the four winds so that no harm comes to Israel? All four angels are doing something powerful for Israel, are they not? Therefore, other angels can be chosen to do important tasks to protect Israel. Gabriel came and brought messages to people in Israel from God as well - (and of course the word angel simply means messenger)... but does that make Gabriel, Christ (the Word of God, who spoke as God told Him to speak)?

Of course not.


And if Michael serves and supports Christ, would he (Michael) not also serve and support those who belong to Christ - such as Israel? Michael is the prince of Israel, after all. But Christ is the Prince of princes (of which Michael is one).

Michael IS a powerful angel - one of the chief princes - and he has remained loyal to Christ, supporting and serving Christ.

But Michael is not Christ.

3. The term archangel means chief of the angels. Arch means chief or principal. The term is only applied to one angel in the Bible. Michael. It is always used in the singular. There is only one archangel. The term archangel itself only appears twice throughout Scripture. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 Paul writes of Jesus as having the voice of the archangel, and Jude 9 indicates Michael disputed with Satan over the body of Moses. So there is a connection with Jesus as well as an indication that Michael was connected in some way with the people of the exodus of Egypt.
Michael is one of the chief princes.

We know that there are multiple princes (Daniel 10:13)- and each prince has a principality, such as Persia, or Greece, or Israel, etc, Daniel 10:20.


But Christ is prince OF princes. He is over them all (including Michael).


As for 1 Thessalonians, Christ coming with the voice of an archangel does not make Him an and/or that archangel... anymore than Christ coming with the trumpet call of God makes Him God.


Overcomer summed that up here:
Jesus is the one coming down from heaven. But do the words “voice of the archangel” mean that Jesus is an archangel, let alone THE archangel Michael? Not at all. If I said my sister sings with the voice of an angel, would you assume she’s an angel? And if Jesus comes with the trumpet call of God, why doesn’t the JW assume that he’s God? After all, if the one clause tells us Jesus is an archangel then why doesn’t the next clause, structured exactly the same way, mean that he’s God?
And just because Michael disputed with Satan about something does not indicate that Michael is Christ.

Michael is the arkangel who remained faithful to Christ. The Adversary is the arkangel (originally a guardian angel) who turned away from Christ (to look at himself).


4. Other than Jehovah God himself only two people in the Bible are said to be in charge of or over the angels. They are Michael and Jesus Christ. The name Michael appears only five times throughout Scripture. At Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1 / Jude 9 and Revelation 12:7.
A - That is not true.

The Adversary has angels as well.

Then war broke out in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back.

B - There are multiple princes (as Daniel shows). Christ is prince of princes (multiple).


5. Are there any others who believe Michael and Jesus are the same? Yes, there are many. Joseph Benson, E. W. Hengstenberg, J. P. Lange, Butterworth, Cruden, Taylor, Guyse all wrote that Michael and Jesus were the same.
This is not evidence that Christ is Michael.

Many experts believe the trinity is true; many experts believe hell (as a place of eternal torment) is true; etc.

Even the people who believe that Christ is Michael believe other things that are false. So how is it that their beliefs could be credible as support?


**


And of course there is the verse that speak AGAINST the Son of God being an angel (and an archangel is still an angel).


**

Christ is the Son of God, born from God, brought forth from God (as Proverbs 8 does make clear, and yes, my Lord does teach that He is Wisdom. Does Christ not call out? Do not those who find Christ, find life?)




May anyone who wishes them be given ears to hear, so as to hear the truth of this (and any) matter, from THE Truth: Christ Jaheshua. And may anyone who thirsts, as the Spirit and the Bride say to you, "Come! Take the free gift of the water of Life!"



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

User avatar
DavidLeon
Scholar
Posts: 495
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Location: Midwest
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Jesus Is Michael

Post #12

Post by DavidLeon »

tam wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:25 pm
And if Michael serves and supports Christ, would he (Michael) not also serve and support those who belong to Christ - such as Israel? Michael is the prince of Israel, after all. But Christ is the Prince of princes (of which Michael is one).

Michael IS a powerful angel - one of the chief princes - and he has remained loyal to Christ, supporting and serving Christ.

But Michael is not Christ.

David wrote:3. The term archangel means chief of the angels. Arch means chief or principal. The term is only applied to one angel in the Bible. Michael. It is always used in the singular. There is only one archangel. The term archangel itself only appears twice throughout Scripture. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 Paul writes of Jesus as having the voice of the archangel, and Jude 9 indicates Michael disputed with Satan over the body of Moses. So there is a connection with Jesus as well as an indication that Michael was connected in some way with the people of the exodus of Egypt.
Michael is one of the chief princes.
We are not talking about princes we are talking about angels. Archangel. Meaning chief or foremost of the angels. You agree that Jesus was an angel in heaven before coming to earth and returned to heaven as an angel. He's an angel. If Michael is the chief of angels and Jesus is an angel then Michael doesn't serve him. Michael is his chief. Jesus would be Michael's subordinate. That isn't the case. Jesus is subordinate only to Jehovah.

Also, why do religious people get hung up on names as if variations have some significance? Calling Jesus Jaheshua is pointless. One insists you call Jesus Iēsous because it's Greek, another Yeshua or Y'shua because it's Hebrew, another insists on the Latin. All of those are fine if you speak the language being insisted upon. The Albanian Jezui, the Arabic Yasu, the Aragonese Chesús, the Breton Jezuz, the Fijian Jisu etc.

You and I speak English. It's Jesus. Changing it to some non-English based variation isn't significant in any meaningful way.
Image

Online
User avatar
tam
Prodigy
Posts: 4226
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 5 times
Contact:

Re: Jesus Is Michael

Post #13

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
DavidLeon wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 7:10 am
tam wrote:
Tue Jul 14, 2020 11:25 pm
And if Michael serves and supports Christ, would he (Michael) not also serve and support those who belong to Christ - such as Israel? Michael is the prince of Israel, after all. But Christ is the Prince of princes (of which Michael is one).

Michael IS a powerful angel - one of the chief princes - and he has remained loyal to Christ, supporting and serving Christ.

But Michael is not Christ.

David wrote:3. The term archangel means chief of the angels. Arch means chief or principal. The term is only applied to one angel in the Bible. Michael. It is always used in the singular. There is only one archangel. The term archangel itself only appears twice throughout Scripture. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 Paul writes of Jesus as having the voice of the archangel, and Jude 9 indicates Michael disputed with Satan over the body of Moses. So there is a connection with Jesus as well as an indication that Michael was connected in some way with the people of the exodus of Egypt.
Michael is one of the chief princes.
We are not talking about princes we are talking about angels.
If we are talking about Michael, then we are talking about princes. I posted the relevant scriptures in my original post above.

But the prince of the royal realm of Persia stood in opposition to me for 21 days. But then Miʹcha·el, one of the foremost princes, came to help me; Daniel 10:13

“Do you know why I have come to you? Now I will go back to fight with the prince of Persia.a When I leave, the prince of Greece will come. 21 However, I will tell you the things recorded in the writings of truth. There is no one strongly supporting me in these things but Miʹcha·el, your prince Daniel 10:20-21
Archangel. Meaning chief or foremost of the angels.


Michael is one of the foremost princes (as even the NWT translates). "One of" means that there are others.
You agree that Jesus was an angel in heaven before coming to earth and returned to heaven as an angel.
I did not agree to that (not in the way that you are using the word, angel. Angel means messenger, so as the Word of God, Christ could be described as an angel - but that would hold true for Him even as a man). I assume that you are using the word angel more along the sense of a spirit being (which both Christ and God are spirit beings, but you would not describe God as an angel. Well, Christ is as God is.)

Christ taught that He is the Son of God. He never taught that He was Michael (or that he was one of the angels).

And Hebrews 1 speaks quite a bit about the Son as being separate and distinct from an angel.

An archangel (such as Michael) is still an angel.
Also, why do religious people get hung up on names as if variations have some significance? Calling Jesus Jaheshua is pointless.
A - I am not religious. I belong to no religion. I have faith and I am spiritual (we are to worship God in spirit and in truth).

B - I use the name my Lord showed me IS His name. How could the true name of Christ - the only name under heaven by which we will be saved - be pointless? How could using His name be pointless?

You may consider such things pointless, but I use my Lord's name as He showed me because a) it is the truth and the truth matters; b) His is the only name under heaven by which we will be saved, and c) out of love for Him. You don't learn someone's name and then refuse to use it.
One insists you call Jesus Iēsous because it's Greek, another Yeshua or Y'shua because it's Hebrew, another insists on the Latin. All of those are fine if you speak the language being insisted upon. The Albanian Jezui, the Arabic Yasu, the Aragonese Chesús, the Breton Jezuz, the Fijian Jisu etc.

You and I speak English. It's Jesus. Changing it to some non-English based variation isn't significant in any meaningful way.
Jesus is not the English translation OR transliteration of Jaheshua (or even of Yeshua). My Lord came in the name of His Father (JAHVEH). His name has the name of His Father in it (JAH'eshua). Just as many of the prophets before Christ had the name (or title) of God in their name.

ELiJAH (my God is JAH)
EzekiEL
Jeremiah
Zekariah
Daniel
Israel

(even some of the above names would have had the name of God in them, but that has been lost, removed, perhaps due to the practice of Israel to not pronounce or write God's name)

Do you suppose the prophets would have the name of God in their names, but the One who came in the name of His Father, would not?

Jaheshua = Jah saves/savior of JAH

My Lord's name has meaning.

You will note though that I did not insist you or anyone else use anything. I simply spoke the truth as my Lord has taught me, and I use His name as He has shown me.





Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

User avatar
DavidLeon
Scholar
Posts: 495
Joined: Sat May 23, 2020 12:07 pm
Location: Midwest
Has thanked: 30 times
Been thanked: 25 times

Re: Jesus Is Michael

Post #14

Post by DavidLeon »

tam wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 3:07 pm
If we are talking about Michael, then we are talking about princes. I posted the relevant scriptures in my original post above.

Michael is one of the foremost princes (as even the NWT translates). "One of" means that there are others.
I'm not arguing this. Both Michael and Jesus were both princes and spirit creatures. We are talking about the archangel over angels. That's the discussion.
tam wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 3:07 pm
David wrote:You agree that Jesus was an angel in heaven before coming to earth and returned to heaven as an angel.
I did not agree to that (not in the way that you are using the word, angel. Angel means messenger, so as the Word of God, Christ could be described as an angel - but that would hold true for Him even as a man). I assume that you are using the word angel more along the sense of a spirit being (which both Christ and God are spirit beings, but you would not describe God as an angel. Well, Christ is as God is.)
I don't think this terribly relevant to the discussion, but it is such an excellent series of points you are making I have to address it. Where I've underlined your quote above I agree with. Jesus was an angel even as a man. As you've pointed out angel means messenger. When the word applies to a man in scripture it is rendered messenger, and when to a spirit creature it is rendered angel. Spirit creatures that have taken on the physical form can be referred to as angels, men, God and even Jehovah.

The portion of your quote I've applied bold text is an excellent point. Not that I didn't know it but I have never thought about it as such. For that I thank you. The part of your quote I've italicized I flat out disagree if you mean to imply the trinity. You must have meant it in some other capacity but I have no idea why. In some ways Christ is as God is. In some ways Michael is. The meaning of the name itself asks the question. In some ways Satan is as God is and we are as God is, so I don't know what you are talking about. Since you had just made the point where God wasn't as Christ is (an angel) I can't even guess what you mean.
tam wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 3:07 pm
Christ taught that He is the Son of God. He never taught that He was Michael (or that he was one of the angels).

And Hebrews 1 speaks quite a bit about the Son as being separate and distinct from an angel.

An archangel (such as Michael) is still an angel.
David wrote:Also, why do religious people get hung up on names as if variations have some significance? Calling Jesus Jaheshua is pointless.
A - I am not religious. I belong to no religion. I have faith and I am spiritual (we are to worship God in spirit and in truth).

B - I use the name my Lord showed me IS His name. How could the true name of Christ - the only name under heaven by which we will be saved - be pointless? How could using His name be pointless?

You may consider such things pointless, but I use my Lord's name as He showed me because a) it is the truth and the truth matters; b) His is the only name under heaven by which we will be saved, and c) out of love for Him. You don't learn someone's name and then refuse to use it.
One insists you call Jesus Iēsous because it's Greek, another Yeshua or Y'shua because it's Hebrew, another insists on the Latin. All of those are fine if you speak the language being insisted upon. The Albanian Jezui, the Arabic Yasu, the Aragonese Chesús, the Breton Jezuz, the Fijian Jisu etc.

You and I speak English. It's Jesus. Changing it to some non-English based variation isn't significant in any meaningful way.
Jesus is not the English translation OR transliteration of Jaheshua (or even of Yeshua). My Lord came in the name of His Father (JAHVEH). His name has the name of His Father in it (JAH'eshua). Just as many of the prophets before Christ had the name (or title) of God in their name.

ELiJAH (my God is JAH)
EzekiEL
Jeremiah
Zekariah
Daniel
Israel

(even some of the above names would have had the name of God in them, but that has been lost, removed, perhaps due to the practice of Israel to not pronounce or write God's name)

Do you suppose the prophets would have the name of God in their names, but the One who came in the name of His Father, would not?

Jaheshua = Jah saves/savior of JAH

My Lord's name has meaning.

You will note though that I did not insist you or anyone else use anything. I simply spoke the truth as my Lord has taught me, and I use His name as He has shown me.


[sigh] I can take you to several scriptures where Jesus taught that he was one of the angels. I'm from the realm above, you are from the realm below, before Abraham I was, you are of this world, I am not of this world.

There isn't one scripture where you can take me to Jesus correcting someone that his name was what you say it is. He and his followers spoke several languages, he had several names. English is Jesus. You can call him something else if you want and then you can justify that and meantime life outside goes on all around us.

At the end of the day you have two options. Jesus was either Michael or a subordinate of Michael. The former is true, the later isn't.

ETA: I was going to edit the last part about the name out, but I've decided to keep it and explain why. It isn't so much that I disagree with the name's meaning it's that I tend to bristle when that sort of interpretation is introduced in a way which seems to me more significant than it is in the context of the discussion. A prime example of this is people insisting on using Yahweh instead of Jehovah. You can get bogged down in a big discussion that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand and most of the time the name is being used in some religious sense. Sometimes it is relevant but more often it reflects some trappings of ideology.

So, it becomes Redundant. I'm frustrated lately because I don't have the time to do all that I want to do and it's showing in my limited participation. Especially on occasions I don't have time to address posts that I would really like to address. So there's little bits and pieces of me scattered here and there.

You made some good points Tam, the fault is mine. I have to learn to adjust and for a while choose my battles carefully.
Image

Online
User avatar
tam
Prodigy
Posts: 4226
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 5 times
Contact:

Re: Jesus Is Michael

Post #15

Post by tam »

Peace to you,
DavidLeon wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 7:52 pm
tam wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 3:07 pm
If we are talking about Michael, then we are talking about princes. I posted the relevant scriptures in my original post above.

Michael is one of the foremost princes (as even the NWT translates). "One of" means that there are others.
I'm not arguing this. Both Michael and Jesus were both princes and spirit creatures. We are talking about the archangel over angels. That's the discussion.
Yes, but the fact that Michael is one of the chief princes, indicates that there is more than one chief prince. Christ, on the other hand, is the Prince OF princes. He is not one of the chief princes. He is the Prince OF princes. This (along with the other points made in my previous posts) show that Christ and Michael are two different persons. Michael (a prince, and one of the chief princes) is subordinate to Christ (the Prince OF princes).
tam wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 3:07 pm
David wrote:You agree that Jesus was an angel in heaven before coming to earth and returned to heaven as an angel.
I did not agree to that (not in the way that you are using the word, angel. Angel means messenger, so as the Word of God, Christ could be described as an angel - but that would hold true for Him even as a man). I assume that you are using the word angel more along the sense of a spirit being (which both Christ and God are spirit beings, but you would not describe God as an angel. Well, Christ is as God is.)
I don't think this terribly relevant to the discussion, but it is such an excellent series of points you are making I have to address it. Where I've underlined your quote above I agree with. Jesus was an angel even as a man. As you've pointed out angel means messenger. When the word applies to a man in scripture it is rendered messenger, and when to a spirit creature it is rendered angel. Spirit creatures that have taken on the physical form can be referred to as angels, men, God and even Jehovah.

The portion of your quote I've applied bold text is an excellent point. Not that I didn't know it but I have never thought about it as such. For that I thank you.
I am glad these things resonated with you.

T
he part of your quote I've italicized I flat out disagree if you mean to imply the trinity.
I do not. I mean what Christ taught: that to see Him is to see the Father; to know Him is to know the Father. Not because He IS the Father, but because He is the IMAGE of God, and the perfect representation of God.

Know Christ, know God.

Christ - as the Son of God - is as God is.
You must have meant it in some other capacity but I have no idea why. In some ways Christ is as God is. In some ways Michael is. The meaning of the name itself asks the question. In some ways Satan is as God is and we are as God is, so I don't know what you are talking about.


No... Christ is not 'as God is in just some ways'. Christ is the PERFECT representation of God, the PERFECT image of God.

Since you had just made the point where God wasn't as Christ is (an angel) I can't even guess what you mean.
Once again, I do not claim that Christ is an angel. I simply distinguished the meaning of the word (messenger) from the manner in which most people use the word 'angel' to describe the spirit beings that are called angels (such as Michael or Gabriel or the Adversary and all the rest.)

tam wrote:
Wed Jul 15, 2020 3:07 pm
Christ taught that He is the Son of God. He never taught that He was Michael (or that he was one of the angels).

And Hebrews 1 speaks quite a bit about the Son as being separate and distinct from an angel.

An archangel (such as Michael) is still an angel.
David wrote:Also, why do religious people get hung up on names as if variations have some significance? Calling Jesus Jaheshua is pointless.
A - I am not religious. I belong to no religion. I have faith and I am spiritual (we are to worship God in spirit and in truth).

B - I use the name my Lord showed me IS His name. How could the true name of Christ - the only name under heaven by which we will be saved - be pointless? How could using His name be pointless?

You may consider such things pointless, but I use my Lord's name as He showed me because a) it is the truth and the truth matters; b) His is the only name under heaven by which we will be saved, and c) out of love for Him. You don't learn someone's name and then refuse to use it.
One insists you call Jesus Iēsous because it's Greek, another Yeshua or Y'shua because it's Hebrew, another insists on the Latin. All of those are fine if you speak the language being insisted upon. The Albanian Jezui, the Arabic Yasu, the Aragonese Chesús, the Breton Jezuz, the Fijian Jisu etc.

You and I speak English. It's Jesus. Changing it to some non-English based variation isn't significant in any meaningful way.
Jesus is not the English translation OR transliteration of Jaheshua (or even of Yeshua). My Lord came in the name of His Father (JAHVEH). His name has the name of His Father in it (JAH'eshua). Just as many of the prophets before Christ had the name (or title) of God in their name.

ELiJAH (my God is JAH)
EzekiEL
Jeremiah
Zekariah
Daniel
Israel

(even some of the above names would have had the name of God in them, but that has been lost, removed, perhaps due to the practice of Israel to not pronounce or write God's name)

Do you suppose the prophets would have the name of God in their names, but the One who came in the name of His Father, would not?

Jaheshua = Jah saves/savior of JAH

My Lord's name has meaning.

You will note though that I did not insist you or anyone else use anything. I simply spoke the truth as my Lord has taught me, and I use His name as He has shown me.


[sigh] I can take you to several scriptures where Jesus taught that he was one of the angels.
No you can't. You can take me to several scriptures where you are interpreting Christ's words to mean what you are saying. But so can anyone who teaches and accepts the trinity.

Neither you - nor they - can take me to a single teaching from Christ where He actually teaches what you are claiming.

There isn't one scripture where you can take me to Jesus correcting someone that his name was what you say it is.


Of course not. No one ever called Him, "Jesus". Why would there be a scripture of Christ correcting someone for calling Him a name that was never used until long after His death, resurrection, and ascension?

He and his followers spoke several languages, he had several names. English is Jesus.
Jesus is not the English transliteration (or translation) of Jaheshua (or even of Y'eshua). The closest english transliteration would be Joshua.

(you may or may not need this, but I found this to be a simple explanation on translation and transliteration. https://www.londontranslations.co.uk/fa ... anslation/ "Jesus" is neither a translation or a transliteration of my Lord's name.)
You can call him something else if you want and then you can justify that and meantime life outside goes on all around us. At the end of the day you have two options. Jesus was either Michael or a subordinate of Michael. The former is true, the later isn't.
How are these the only two options? You seem to be basing that conclusion on a couple of assumptions (both incorrect):

1- that there is only one archangel (and yet, Michael is one of the chief princes), and no one other than God can be above him

AND,

2- that Christ is a mere angel.
ETA: I was going to edit the last part about the name out, but I've decided to keep it and explain why. It isn't so much that I disagree with the name's meaning it's that I tend to bristle when that sort of interpretation is introduced in a way which seems to me more significant than it is in the context of the discussion. A prime example of this is people insisting on using Yahweh instead of Jehovah. You can get bogged down in a big discussion that has nothing to do with the discussion at hand and most of the time the name is being used in some religious sense. Sometimes it is relevant but more often it reflects some trappings of ideology.
First thank you for making note that you edited something in!

Second, and I mean no offense, but I think you are the one 'bogging' us down with this. I simply stated what was true, and to clarify who my Lord is. If the name doesn't matter so much (to you), then why object to my using the name that was given me TO use? Might that be because the name actually DOES matter? The name of an angel or a human does not matter as much (although I have seen at least one occasion where someone who objected/mocked using the actual name of Christ, turned around and took great offense at a mispronunciation of his own name.) In fact, many of us correct people for mispronouncing our names, yet many shrug off the importance of the correct names of Christ and of God? The name of Christ and the name of God... these names matter.

So, it becomes Redundant. I'm frustrated lately because I don't have the time to do all that I want to do and it's showing in my limited participation. Especially on occasions I don't have time to address posts that I would really like to address. So there's little bits and pieces of me scattered here and there. You made some good points Tam, the fault is mine. I have to learn to adjust and for a while choose my battles carefully.
No worries at all. And it was certainly not my intention to derail your thread into another discussion simply by clarifying the name of my Lord. But I cannot use a name that is not true. (It doesn't even make sense to me to use a name that I know is untrue, for the One who is THE Truth.) So I clarify when I write or speak, because my Lord is Jaheshua (the Chosen One of JAH). He is the One I follow, He is the One I listen TO. He is the One who teaches me and who has promised to lead me (to lead His sheep) into all truth. (Would not His name count as something in that category - all truth?)


Peace again to you, and to your household,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

User avatar
JehovahsWitness
Savant
Posts: 14468
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 6:03 am
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 22 times
Contact:

Re: Jesus Is Michael

Post #16

Post by JehovahsWitness »

Overcomer wrote:
Sun Jul 05, 2020 12:04 pm
Let me start off by giving you a warning about JW sites and their arguments against the deity of Jesus Christ. They purposely lie and attempt to deceive their readers. They often do this by citing a Christian scholar, taking a statement he has made out of context, making it look like he agrees with the JW position when, in truth, he doesn’t. You can find this out by looking up the statement in context.

Here’s an example. A JW web site offers a statement about Daniel 12:1 from John Gill’s Exposition of the Bible.
Do you have the source for the above (ie the JW website link that quotes Gill's) ? We only have ONE official website : www.jw.org , any other source are personal opinions of people that happen to be Jehovahs Witnesses, not the same thing. If you have an issue with an individual webmaster may I suggest you approach them, our society neither misquotes nor quotes author's out of context.


Thank you,



JW
INDEX: More bible based ANSWERS
http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... 81#p826681


"For if we live, we live to Jehovah, and if we die, we die to Jehovah. So both if we live and if we die, we belong to Jehovah" -
Romans 14:8

User avatar
tigger 2
Student
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon May 25, 2020 3:02 pm
Has thanked: 13 times
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: Jesus Is Michael

Post #17

Post by tigger 2 »

Overcomer:
When I made the statement that only JWs believe Michael was Jesus, you asked me to re-read the OP. I did and I decided that I would address the list of people that you say agree with the JWs about that and the problems I have with their list.


T2: I answered his complaint about the list of those who stated that they (or others) believed Michael to be Christ in posts 9 and 10.

However, he didn't acknowledge his error in stating "only JWs believe Michael was Jesus." Complete references were given for the majority of those in the list he complained about (see post #9, parts in blue).

Post Reply