Jehovah`s Witness/JESUS = MICHAEL ARCHANGEL?
QUESTION: Hello EddieG
I've seen your posts already and both you and BRENTON, gave a very satisfying answer... Really the TRUTH can't be deride.
Anyway, I have another question regarding Jesus equals Michael Archangel . . .
You know i've read from someone's blog(Probably one of the JW) it says there:
"3.3.3 The Greek for 'with an archangel's voice' in 1Thessalonians 4:16 is literally 'εν φωνη αρχαγγελου, en phone archangelou', 'EN FWNHi ARXAGGELOU' (with an/the archangel's voice), in the oblique dative case. A reasonably close parallel to en phone archangelou' in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 is at 2 Peter 2:16: “the dumb ass speaking with man's voice”. Here we have 'εν φωνη, en phone' (with the/a voice) together with a genitive. The donkey was speaking with a man's voice - but it was the donkey that was speaking, not a man nearby. Likewise, in all other cases where 'en phone' is used in the NT, the voice in question always belongs to voice of the subject in the clause, not some unspecified third person." --- Source: http://tearsofoberon.blogspot.com/2009/09/high-angel-christology-is-jesus-christ
Now if I'm going to use JW's reasoning or point of views when explaining 1 Thess 4:16, then understandably also that at 2 Peter 2:16 where “the dumb ass speaking with man's voice”, must also be the "MAN"! because JW reasoned that since the LORD JESUS depicted as having an “Archangel's voice” then he is the "ARCHANGEL"
Please consider also I Cor. 13:1 where one speaks with the "tongues of angels" without being an angel.
So it is impossible for Michael to be Jesus EVEN FROM JW'S VIEW at 1 Thess. 4:16, because it contradicts with the other passages. However sharing my own view is clearly in line with the grammatical construct of (Psalm 47:5) where God ascends with a shout, with the "phone" of a trumpet.
Clearly, the shout is not made USING a trumpet's "phone" but they are distinct. Just as the shout of command (en keleumati) and the voice of an archangel (en phone archangelou) and the blast God's trumpet are three different thing
New American Standard Bible:
God has ascended with a shout, The LORD, with the sound of a trumpet.
Hope it's going to be a convincing one again
Looking forward and Thank you in adv
ANSWER: Hi Dave,
Thanks for your question. Since the website you linked to has extensive information already, I will approach your question from a different perspective.
>>Now if I'm going to use JW's reasoning or point of views when explaining 1 Thess 4:16, then understandably also that at 2 Peter 2:16 where “the dumb ass speaking with man's voice”, must also be the "MAN"! because JW reasoned that since the LORD JESUS depicted as having an “Archangel's voice” then he is the "ARCHANGEL" <<
Sure you can reason that way if you want to. You can also say that all red trucks are firetrucks since firetrucks are red. Isn't it?
But is it a correct reasoning? Obviously, not. No, because not all red trucks are firetrucks. It just so happen that firetrucks are red. So one must consider the context of a word in order to come up with the correct meaning and understanding.
So in context why do we say that Jesus is Michael the Archangel?
Simple, because Jesus' was the name given to the son God when he came to earth.
How do we know this?
The scripture says it by means of an angel:
“. . .So the angel said to her: “Have no fear, Mary, for you have found favor with God; 31 and, look! you will conceive in your womb and give birth to a son, and you are to call his name Jesus.” (Luke 1:30, 31)
Why the name Jesus and not Michael?
Simple, Jesus was given to him as his earthly name for a specific purpose - to become God's savior!
As the scripture say:
“She will give birth to a son, and you must call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins.”” (Matthew 1:21)
“. . .“See, the Lamb of God that takes away the sin of the world!” (John 1:29)
“because there was born to YOU today a Savior, who is Christ [the] Lord, in David’s city.” (Luke 2:11)
Thus his full name on earth is Jesus Christ.
Appropriately given for Jesus or Jehoshua means - "Salvation of Jah" or "Salvation of Jehovah" or "Jehovah Is Salvation". Christ or Messiah (ma·shach′/Gr Khri·stos′)means the "anointed one". Hence Jesus Christ.
Interestingly, Jesus have other names. They are Immanuel, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” -- Isaiah 9:6
But none of these (prophetic) names appropriately described the son of God as "Jehovah Is Salvation" other than Jesus/Jehoshua. Hence Jesus Christ.
Now Dave, can you come up with any other name that equals "Jehovah Is Salvation" and fulfill the meaning of that name other than Jesus Christ's?
If none then I rest my case on this matter.
Now why Michael?
Simple, because in Hebrew the name Mi′cha·el means "Who Is Like God?"
And who among ALL of God's creations Dave, in both the heavens and the earth can PERFECTLY represent God?
Who Is Like God, Dave?
No one except the only begotten son of God. Thus Michael who we came to know on earth as Jesus Christ is appropriately named Michael - Who is like God.
Search the scriptures all you want Dave. No one can represent Jehovah perfectly other than the son of God - Jesus!
So, Who Is Like God? Jesus for...
“. . .He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;” (Colossians 1:15)
Put these undeniable and incontrovertible truth Dave, what do you have?
This: Jesus is none other than Michael the Archangel.
Who Is Like God? Jesus Christ that is Michael the Archangel.
Follow up Dave if you need additional info or need a different answer.
BTW - let me add this bit of info about 2 Pet 2:16 - It was not the she-ass nor a man that was talking, rather an angel of Jehovah.
“32 Then Jehovah’s angel said to him: “Why have you beaten your she-ass these three times? Look! I—I have come out to offer resistance, because your way has been headlong against my will. 33 And the she-ass got to see me and tried to turn aside before me these three times. Supposing she had not turned aside from before me! For by now even you I should have killed, but her I should have preserved alive.” 34 At this Ba′laam said to Jehovah’s angel: “I have sinned, because I did not know that it was you stationed in the road to meet me. And now, if it is bad in your eyes, let me go my way back.” 35 But Jehovah’s angel said to Ba′laam: “Go with the men; and nothing but the word that I shall speak to you is what you may speak.” And Ba′laam continued going with the princes of Ba′lak.” (Numbers 22:32-35)
---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------
QUESTION: Thank you for that EddieG
But honestly i am not satisfy, because as far as i know JW's are very rigid or strict when it comes to grammatical rulings... And this time, in the case of JESUS having or with
an Archangel's voice(therefore he's the archangel), it's clearly a ridiculous idea... Because as I said, at 2 Peter 2:16 also where “the dumb ass speaking with
man's voice”(the same grammatical construction)
, they never reasoned that the "dumb ass"
is the "man"
also! And also at (Psalm 47:5) where God ascends with a shout, with
the "phone" of a trumpet.</b> As I said if I'm going to use their reasoning using with the same
grammatical construction(that is 1Thess. 4:16)
then God is the TRUMPET!That's ridiculous isn't it? So how come they(JW) reasoned like that?
Now EddieG, don't tell me that you just let them brainwashed you with that grammatical Idea?
Thanks for the follow up.
OK - let's take a look at it now from a grammatical perspective.
So the reason you're not convinced that Jesus is Michael the Archangel is because of grammatical rules.
That is, since "the dumb ass speaking with
man's voice”(the same grammatical construction)
, they never reasoned that the "dumb ass"
is the "man"
Ok, fair enough.
Let's take a look at 1 Thessalonians 4:16 again. It says:
“because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.” (1 Thessalonians 4:16)
and comparing it with 2 Peter 2:16:
“. . .but got a reproof for his own violation of what was right. A voiceless beast of burden, making utterance with the voice of a man, hindered the prophet’s mad course.” (2 Peter 2:16)
extracting this phrase from 1 Thessalonians 4:16:
"with an archangel’s voice"
and comparing it with this phrase at 2 Peter 2:16:
"with the voice of a man"
Does this indicate that:
Since Jesus himself will "descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice", the she-ass is a man since it was "making utterance with the voice of a man"?
Of course NOT.
1 Thessalonians 4:16 is merely stating the FACT that Jesus is coming "with an archangel’s voice" because he is an Archangel! Only an Archangel can command with an authority of an Archangel. Otherwise 1 Thessalonians 4:16 will have no real meaning at all.
As for the "dumb-ass" it was an angel of Jehovah who was making it "utter with the voice of a man" according to context (at Numbers).
But if you came up with a different interpretation, where and how in the world did you arrive with that understanding?
The ONLY thing I can think of is - you did not consider the context (of the scriptures) or you are being misled by someone.
If so, I hope you're not reading apostate sites that give misleading information. If you do, may I suggest to focused your energy an attention on things that are up-building and faith strengthening?
Our website JW.org is a good place to start with and fellowship with the brothers is another avenue.
But like I said, you have to take a look and consider the CONTEXT also, NOT JUST grammatical rules. Otherwise you will MISSED the point.
In both instances you misunderstood what's being said by not considering context.
Now you said:
>>as far as i know JW's are very rigid or strict when it comes to grammatical rulings<<
Do you have any proof of this? If you do can you please let me know so that I can take a look at it. As far as I know, there is NO such RIGID rule in placed.
In fact below are two examples of how a word/phrase is applied and understood based on CONTEXT.
▪ At Romans 8:27, the New World Translation renders the Greek phro′ne·ma as “meaning,” but in verses 6 and 7, the rendering is “minding.” Why is the same Greek word translated differently?
The context recommends the two renderings chosen.
The Foreword of the New World Translation of the Christian Greek Scriptures (1950) stated: “To each major word we have assigned one meaning and have held to that meaning as far as the context permitted.” Some would not consider phro′ne·ma a major word, since it occurs only four times. It is, though, related to words that are used more often. One is phro·ne′o, meaning “to think, to be minded in a certain way.” (Matthew 16:23; Mark 8:33; Romans 8:5; 12:3; 15:5) Other related Greek words convey the idea of using practical wisdom, sense, or discretion.—Luke 1:17; 12:42; 16:8; Romans 11:25; Ephesians 1:8.
The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures shows that phro′ne·ma occurs four times at Romans 8:6, 7, 27 and that its literal meaning is consistently “minding.” Greek scholars Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich explain phro′ne·ma as: ‘way of thinking, mind(-set), aim, aspiration, striving.’—A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature.
In Romans chapter 8, the apostle Paul counseled Christians not to walk according to the imperfect human flesh. To succeed in this, they should guard against the tendencies or impulses of the flesh, as well as the reasonings of an imperfect heart. ‘Setting their minds’ on the things in accord with God’s holy spirit will help in this.—Romans 8:1-5.
Paul offered this contrast: “The minding of the flesh means death, but the minding of the spirit means life and peace; because the minding of the flesh means enmity with God, for it is not under subjection to the law of God.” (Romans 8:6, 7) Humans are the subjects in these two verses. Humans, particularly Christians, ought not set their minds on, or be “minding,” the things of the fallen flesh. Instead, they ought to set their minds on, or be “minding,” the things that are in harmony with and stimulated by the spirit.
In contrast, verse 27 is dealing with God himself. We read: “Yet he [Jehovah] who searches the hearts knows what the meaning of the spirit is, because it is pleading in accord with God for holy ones.” Yes, the “he” here is Jehovah, the Hearer of prayer.
The word phro′ne·ma could have been rendered in verse 27 as “minding.” But holy spirit is not a person that actually thinks or has its own thinking. The spirit is the active force of God, who knows how his holy spirit works in accomplishing his will. Further, the import of this verse differs from that of Romans 8:6, 7. Those earlier verses highlighted the need humans have to control their thinking and actions. But Jehovah does not have to work, or struggle, to control himself. He knows what was recorded in the Bible under inspiration, such as Biblical expressions that indicate his will for his earthly servants. Dr. Heinrich Meyer comments on Romans 8:27: “God would in every case know the purpose of the Spirit.”
Hence, the rendering “meaning” is in line with the context or thrust of Romans 8:27, and it is allowed by the Greek. The Translator’s New Testament renders it: “He who searches hearts knows what the Spirit means.”
Why does the New World Translation at times render the Greek word pi·steu′o as “believe” (like most translations) and at other times as “exercise [or put] faith in”?
This is done to reflect different shades of meaning that are expressed by the Greek word pi·steu′o.
For example, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, by James Moulton, notes that early Christians clearly recognized “the importance of the difference between mere belief . . . and personal trust.” Both these thoughts can be expressed using the Greek word pi·steu′o.
Often, the different shades of meaning of pi·steu′o must be discerned from the context. At times, though, different grammatical constructions help us to see what the writer had in mind. For example, if pi·steu′o is followed merely by a noun in the dative case, the New World Translation usually renders it simply as “believe”—unless the context indicates something different. (Matthew 21:25, 32; but see Romans 4:3.) If pi·steu′o is followed by the word e·pi′, “on,” it is generally rendered “believe on.” (Matthew 27:42; Acts 16:31) If it is followed by eis, “to,” it is usually translated “exercise faith in.”—John 12:36; 14:1.
This latter rendering (which reminds us that pi·steu′o is related to the Greek word pi′stis, “faith”) is in harmony with a comment in An Introductory Grammar of New Testament Greek, by Paul Kaufman. This work says: “Another construction which is common in the New Testament (especially in John’s Gospel) is πιστεύω [pi·steu′o] with εἰς [eis] and the accusative case . . . The whole construction of εἰς plus the accusative must be translated rather than attempting to translate the preposition εἰς as an isolated word. Faith is thought of as an activity, as something men do, i.e. putting faith into someone.”
In both the cases above, there's NO "RIGID" grammatical rule applied. But if you still insist on a RIGID grammatical rule, please go ahead but make sure to consider also the context.
In any case, if this is a stumbling block for you from gaining accurate knowledge and everlasting life then I'm sorry to say, there are MUCH more IMPORTANT matters to consider than this.
Some additional reading about CONTEXT if your interested:
*** gm chap. 7 pp. 90-92 Does the Bible Contradict Itself? ***
Read the Context
9 Often, apparent inconsistencies can be resolved if we just look at the context. Consider, for example, the often-raised problem about Cain’s wife. At Genesis 4:1, 2 we read: “In time [Eve] gave birth to Cain and said: ‘I have produced a man with the aid of Jehovah.’ Later she again gave birth, to his brother Abel.” As is well known, Cain killed Abel; but after that, we read that Cain had a wife and children. (Genesis 4:17) If Adam and Eve had only two sons, where did Cain find his wife?
10 The solution lies in the fact that Adam and Eve had more than two children. According to the context, they had a large family. At Genesis 5:3 we read that Adam became father to another son named Seth and then, in the following verse, we read: “He became father to sons and daughters.” (Genesis 5:4) So Cain could have married one of his sisters or even one of his nieces. At that early stage of human history, when mankind was so close to perfection, such a marriage evidently did not pose the risks for the children of the union that it would today.
11 Our considering the context also helps us to understand what some have claimed is a disagreement between the apostle Paul and James. At Ephesians 2:8, 9, Paul says that Christians are saved by faith, not by works. He says: “You have been saved through faith . . . not owing to works.” James, however, insists on the importance of works. He writes: “As the body without spirit is dead, so also faith without works is dead.” (James 2:26) How can these two statements be reconciled?
12 Considering the context of Paul’s words, we find that one statement complements the other. The apostle Paul is referring to the efforts of the Jews to keep the Mosaic Law. They believed that if they kept the Law in all its details, they would be righteous. Paul pointed out that this was impossible. We can never become righteous—and thus deserve salvation—by our own works, for we are inherently sinful. We can only be saved by faith in Jesus’ ransom sacrifice.—Romans 5:18.
13 James, however, adds the vital point that faith in itself is valueless if not supported by actions. A person who claims to have faith in Jesus should prove it by what he does. An inactive faith is a dead faith and will not lead to salvation.
14 The apostle Paul was in full agreement with this, and he often mentions the kinds of works that Christians should engage in to demonstrate their faith. For example, to the Romans he wrote: “With the heart one exercises faith for righteousness, but with the mouth one makes public declaration for salvation.” Making a “public declaration”—sharing our faith with others—is vital for salvation. (Romans 10:10; see also 1 Corinthians 15:58; Ephesians 5:15, 21-33; 6:15; 1 Timothy 4:16; 2 Timothy 4:5; Hebrews 10:23-25.) No work, however, that a Christian can do, and certainly no effort to fulfill the Law of Moses, will earn him the right to everlasting life. This is “the gift God gives” to those who exercise faith.—Romans 6:23; John 3:16.