Jehovah`s Witness/Michael is Jesus

Advertisement


Question
"...Michael, ONE OF the chief PRINCES, came to help me..."

"ONE OF" means that THERE ARE MORE, and notice in that same verse the word PRINCES, claerly indicating PLURAL, meaning; THERE ARE MORE than one. So there you have it, "it is in scripture." Gods word clearly tells us that there is in fact more than one chief prince. So Daniel 10:13 truly puts an end to the rest of your theory concerning verses 14-21.

Now lets look at Daniel 12:1. Just because Michael is called a "great" prince, doesn't mean that we can take this word "great" and associate it with the "child" being called the Prince of Peace or even go as far as using Joshua 5:13,14 where it says "prince of the army of Jehovah"....and associate this too with the "child" who is known as the Prince of Peace.

And to Job 38:7, well...this doesn't in any way indicate that angels are sons of God, because if they are sons of God, then they would be our brothers in Christ as well, meaning that the ones who fell can be saved too!!!!! Or are you willing to say that angels are in a different class of sons than man??  I surely hope not. You can't have it both ways here man.

Now lets look at 1 Thess.4:16

NWT bible:"...with AN archangels voice..." See the word "AN?" This is where the WTBTS screwed up. The word "an" can show us two things here,(1)- that there is in fact more than one archangel as indicated in Daniel 10:13 or (2)- that the Lords commanding call/shout will be the voice like an archangel's voice.

And again, this scripture DOES NOT indicate that Jesus and Michael are the same. As does not the others you present here.

And last but not least, lets look at Rev. 12:7-

I just love how the WTBTS changed "the dragon and HIS angels waged war" to "the dragon and ITS angels waged war," kmowing full well that Satan is an angel and that he has a following, meaning HIS angels not ITS angels.

And I also know that the WTBTS uses Rev. chapter 12 to say that this event happened in 1914, which would be 98 years ago. WOOOOOOOW???? We won't go there though. but I would like to ask you something; when does this angel decide to use the name Michael and when does he decide to use the his other name Jesus?

You use Rev. 12:7 and Rev. 19:11-14 to say Michael and Jesus are one in the same.

First, Rev chapter 12 was a vision of when Satan was cast down, which mind you; this event didn't happen in 1914 as the WTBTS has you believing. Just read the whole chapter, focusing on verses 10-12.

Second, Rev. 19:11-14 is not the same army as indicated in Rev. 12. Michaels army in Rev 12 are angels, and to my knowledge, angels have no need to be clothed in fine linen, white and clean for Jesus is the Lamb for man, NOT angels. Just read back alittle in 19:7-10 and you will see what Gods Word actually says about those who are the ones that are dressed in fine linen......that would be His BRIDE, the SAINTS, NOT angels.

And you say that "son of God means that Jesus is a son to God. Jesus had two messianic titles, (1)- son of God and (2) son of Man.

If we are to say that "son of God" is Jesus being a son to God, then we also have to say that "son of Man" is Jesus being a son to man.

Son of Man means: man in the flesh, just as son of God means: God in the flesh. Can't have it both ways here.

In Is. 9 and also in Matt. 1, it says "a child" will be born and "a son" will be given and Mary will "bear a son"....if Jesus was a son prior to becoming flesh, then it would read, "his child" and "his son" and in Matt.... Mary will "bear His son." Sorry, but there was no son prior to becoming flesh. If we go by WTBTS's theory that you bought in to, then your god is ashamed of his son Michael, but then is proud of him when he becomes Jesus???? Geeeeez.

Let me ask you, where did Michales spirit body go when he became flesh and if you can answer this, please show scripture telling us EXACTLY what happened to Michaels spirit body.

Hey prophet benyamint, I thank God for His two edge sword for it cuts right through the heresy the WTBTs spews out. I am sure you can't understand my reasoning here as well as Brenton Hepburn can't either, and the reason for this is because you lack His Spirit dwelling in you.

Most love in Christ and may you one day receive His Spirit so that you can finally find rest in His Word!


This was my reply to Benyamin Grunbaum. It amazes me how the jws play on here??? At least some has the courage to play fair!

Thanks again Sue and may the Lord Bless you for coming on here!

Chris.

Answer
Michael, ONE OF the chief PRINCES, came to help me..."

"ONE OF" means that THERE ARE MORE,


No one said there was only 1 Prince,in fact I stated that in my 3rd revision go look it up.I believe I said the Prince of Persia was another one,so I dont get your point here,it seems you are saying since there are several Princes then there are several Arch Angels.


Only 1 Arch Angel has been named you cant show me another so your theory is squashed.


You so in a hurry to disprove Michael is Jesus that you stumbled out of the gate and fell flat:


Here was my response 02/10/13



King James Version (KJV)

13 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


So from this verse there are more than one Prince ,Prince is a general term for a ruler, monarch




So again you make no sense.



The Bible NEVER use archangel in the plural sense,your dumb argument sounds like all Princes  are Arch Angels and all Arch Angels are Princes when it should be all Arch Angels are Princes but not all Princes are Arch Angels you are all twisted in your understanding of scripture.




Another dumb statement here:

Now lets look at Daniel 12:1. Just because Michael is called a "great" prince, doesn't mean that we can take this word "great" and associate it with the "child" being called the Prince of Peace or even go as far as using Joshua 5:13,14 where it says "prince of the army of Jehovah"....and associate this too with the "child" who is known as the Prince of Peace.




The Apostle Paul did:


(Hebrews 1:8-9) . . .But with reference to the Son: “God is your throne forever and ever, and [the] scepter of your kingdom is the scepter of uprightness. 9 You loved righteousness, and you hated lawlessness. That is why God, your God, anointed you with [the] oil of exultation more than your partners.. . .

(Psalm 45:16) . . .In place of your forefathers there will come to be your sons, Whom you will appoint as princes in all the earth.

(Isaiah 9:6) . . .and the princely rule . . .



What has you all confused is associating Princes which are angels with the  prefix Arch ,obviously you dont know the meaning of this word,it means chief” or “principal highest in rank or authority or office; "the boss man"; "the chief executive";"head librarian"; "top administrator"  A suffix meaning a ruler, as in monarch (a sole ruler).

Anytime a prefix added to the start of a word it indicates chief,for example Archenemy,you can have many enemies but only one Archenemy he would be your principal enemy.

Cambridge dictionary gives a clear meaning to the prefix Arch:


http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/british/arch_5
arch-
prefix  EXTREME greater or especially worse than others of the same type


In Christendom we see the term Archbishop he is a bishop but higher rank than a bishop thus the prefix "Arch"


There cant be but one Arch-Angel just saying there are many others dont make it truth,you have to prove it scripturally and no apologist has of yet,your argument already failed comparing Princes with Arch-Angel.


Some of your other ramblings I just ignored like:


"And to Job 38:7, well...this doesn't in any way indicate that angels are sons of God"

(Job 38:7) . . .When the morning stars joyfully cried out together, And all the sons of God began shouting in applause. . .


Ill let those reading this see just how dumb that statement was,its not even funny your level of spiritual understanding.


Then you made it much worst:


NWT bible:"...with AN archangels voice..." See the word "AN?" This is where the WTBTS screwed up. The word "an" can show us two things here,(1)- that there is in fact more than one archangel as indicated in Daniel 10:13 or (2)- that the Lords commanding call/shout will be the voice like an archangel's voice.




Man you are dumb spiritually,did it ever occur to you that if the designation “Arch Angel” applied, not to Jesus , but to other angels, then the reference to “an archangel’s voice” would not be appropriate.

In other words the text would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of THE LORD Jesus


I would rather believe what Thayer’s Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament says than a guy who is obviously disoriented and confused:


“Arch-Angel” means “Chief of the angels.”




So the fact that Jesus is depicted leading the angels is proof he is Michael.



Since Jesus is the one prophesied to fight against Satan and since he accomplishes all these other judgment acts, and is in symbolic Rev leading heaven’s armies based on rank as we see only the chief Angel can lead the way

(Revelation 19:11) . . .And I saw the heaven opened, and, look! a white horse. . .

. He has a name written that no one knows but he himself, Also, the armies that were in heaven were following him



We as readers are not told this is Jesus because that name was given to this son of God but its clear who this is,its the same one taking the lead:



(Revelation 12:7) . . .And war broke out in heaven: Mi´cha·el and his angels battled . . .

(Revelation 12:9) 9 So down the great dragon was hurled,. . .

Why would Jesus let someone else have the honor of ousting his archenemy while he just watch,makes no sense.


(Revelation 20:1-2) . . .And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven with the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. 2 And he seized the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years.


Jesus is the one said to gain victory over the Devil yet he again does nothing and someone else even has the pleasure and privalige of imprisioning the Devil,again makes no sense.\

Instead the archangel Michael fights in behalf of God’s Kingdom, taking the lead in cleansing the heavens of Satan.

Then only later we read Jesus fighting after letting Michael fight and does nothing:


(2 Thessalonians 1:7) . . .the Lord Jesus from heaven with his powerful angels



Jesus is the one to take the lead:



(Revelation 19:11-12) . . .he judges and carries on war in righteousness. 12 His eyes are a fiery flame. . .

(Revelation 19:15-16) . . .And out of his mouth there protrudes a sharp long sword, that he may strike the nations with it, and he will shepherd them with a rod of iron. He treads too the winepress of the anger of the wrath of God the Almighty. 16 And upon his outer garment, even upon his thigh, he has a name written, King of kings and Lord of lords.



So it doesn't make sense that he would do nothing and let someone else fight and then later finally fight himself.


Michael is Jesus ,you can twist it all you want but its clear who is taking the lead







Prophet/Prince Grünbaum  

Jehovah`s Witness

All Answers


Answers by Expert:


Ask Experts

Volunteer


Benyamin Grünbaum

©2016 About.com. All rights reserved.