John 3:13

[Wherenextcolumbus]

you have to use all the scriptures together to get the picture. The bible is like a jigzaw puzzle... one scripture only gives you a tiny piece of information. You need more pieces to see the bigger picture.

Yeah let's just take whatever passage we like out of context to support whatever belief we may hold.

 

[Pegg]

"There must be a reason" and so we should assume that reason is because God made him first and he is Jesus. Woah

its not an assumption ... its the result of studying what the scriptures actually say. When you look at all the verses on this subject, you get a clear picture. If you just look at one verse its not going to tell you much... you just need to search the scriptures and they will show you the picture.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

From what you have told me, it is quite a far fetched belief. But I suppose we can read anything we like into it. Also the scripture clearly says "has been."
Also if Michael was meant to be the messiah I think someone would have wrote that down. Also Jesus never says he was Michael the same way he never says he is God. In fact there are more passages that can be used to support Jesus is God than he is Michael.

 

[F0uad]

Dying like he died is not perfected love? It is to me. It is not an easy thing to love sinners. It might be considered by many impossible to love ALL the sinners but he proved in many ways that it is possible.

So you just changed subjects to hes ''allegedly'' death.. well never-mind then.

 

[savagewind]

So you just changed subjects to hes ''allegedly'' death.. well never-mind then.

The theme scripture of the thread is about he who ascended to heaven. How is his death not relevant? Do you believe bones and flesh exist in heaven?

 

[F0uad]

The theme scripture of the thread is about he who ascended to heaven. How is his death not relevant? Do you believe bones and flesh exist in heaven?

Can you explain what the Death of Jesus(pbuh) has anything to do with being not loving towards hes enemies, the pharisees and gentiles?

And if you want to discuss the ''sacrifice'' lets see how loving and just it really is: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/3255159-post71.html

 

[Pegg]

From what you have told me, it is quite a far fetched belief. But I suppose we can read anything we like into it. Also the scripture clearly says "has been."
Also if Michael was meant to be the messiah I think someone would have wrote that down. Also Jesus never says he was Michael the same way he never says he is God. In fact there are more passages that can be used to support Jesus is God than he is Michael.

it may seem far fetched to you... hence why you are a non-believer. But to believers, it is not far fetched. Its perfectly logical. Its a religious belief, it deals with the supernatural...if you dont believe in the supernatural then of course its going to seem far fetched.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

So what's wrong with believing in the trinity then?

 

[Pegg]

So what's wrong with believing in the trinity then?

you can believe in the trinity if you like... the catholics developed the doctrine and they teach it and hold to it as do other denominations.

However, if you prefer to take your form of Christianity from the bible, then you wont find a doctrine of the trinity in there. So it really depends on where you take your information from. We JW's choose to stick to the writings of the Apostles (NT) Sola Scripture! We dont accept the teachings of anything outside of the books of the Greek Scriptures which is why we dont subscribe to the trinity, or many other doctrines the church has.

 

[BruceDLimber]

Since Jesus is God Incarnate, . . .

We disagree.

I quote a Baha'i source:

"[The] invisible yet rational God ... can in no wise incarnate His infinite, His unknowable, His incorruptible and all-embracing Reality in the concrete and limited frame of a mortal being. Indeed, the God Who could so incarnate His own reality would, in the light of the teachings of Bahá'u'lláh, cease immediately to be God. So crude and fantastic a theory of Divine incarnation is as removed from, and incompatible with, the essentials of Bahá'í belief as are the no less inadmissible pantheistic and anthropomorphic conceptions of God."

—(Shoghi Effendi, The World Order of Baha'u'llah, p. 113)

Peace,

Bruce

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

I know and understand why JW do not teach the trinity even though I do not believe in the supernatural. The same way I would understand why Michael is Jesus if there was an argument for it anywhere in the bible.

I think a problem arose when rejecting the trinity. If Jesus is the superior son of God, where is he mentioned in the OT? someone that special should be mentioned by God. And it came down to trying to connect Jesus to Michael, based on 2 words "prince" and "arch." I just don't by it.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Also Isaiah 9:6 "eternal father" Jesus said do not call anyone on earth Father you have ONE father in heaven. So even Jesus himself is saying Isaiah 9:6 isn't about him.

 

[Pegg]

I know and understand why JW do not teach the trinity even though I do not believe in the supernatural. The same way I would understand why Michael is Jesus if there was an argument for it anywhere in the bible.

I think a problem arose when rejecting the trinity. If Jesus is the superior son of God, where is he mentioned in the OT? someone that special should be mentioned by God. And it came down to trying to connect Jesus to Michael, based on 2 words "prince" and "arch." I just don't by it.

the identity of the Messiah was never revealed in the scriptures....it was only given in clues

the first clue that God would even send someone to correct the mistake of Eden is found in Genesis 3 where God says to the serpent that a seed of the women would come and bruise him in the head. That prophecy was understood to mean that an offspring would be born....and when Eve gave birth to her first child Cain, she said "God has produced a Seed, perhaps this one will bring us rest from our labor" So the hebrews always expected a child to be born who would relieve mankind of the burden of sin.

But no one knew the identity of who it would be because God never revealed that. He only gave them clues....

He would be born through Abrahams offspring, Gen 22:16-18
he would come from the tribe of Judah, Gen 49:10
He would be born in family line of King David
He would be born in the city of Bethleham

Clues were given, but it wasnt until he actually arrived that people would be able to identify who he was. And from that time forward, his disciples were able to understand who he was and where he came from. Hence they knew that he had a pre-human life...he was the son of God, he was the 'only begotten of God, he is the head of the angelic hosts etc etc etc.

 

[Pegg]

Also Isaiah 9:6 "eternal father" Jesus said do not call anyone on earth Father you have ONE father in heaven. So even Jesus himself is saying Isaiah 9:6 isn't about him.

Jesus has become our eternal father because he has replaced Adam...our original earthly father.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

the identity of the Messiah was never revealed in the scriptures....it was only given in clues

the first clue that God would even send someone to correct the mistake of Eden is found in Genesis 3 where God says to the serpent that a seed of the women would come and bruise him in the head. That prophecy was understood to mean that an offspring would be born....and when Eve gave birth to her first child Cain, she said "God has produced a Seed, perhaps this one will bring us rest from our labor" So the hebrews always expected a child to be born who would relieve mankind of the burden of sin.
.

Maybe we should ask about this in the Judaism DR and see what answer we get.
"Did the Hebrews always expect a sin bearer?"

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Clues were given, but it wasnt until he actually arrived that people would be able to identify who he was. And from that time forward, his disciples were able to understand who he was and where he came from. Hence they knew that he had a pre-human life...he was the son of God, he was the 'only begotten of God, he is the head of the angelic hosts etc etc etc.

And yet the never said he was Michael

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

Also there are problems with the genealogy of Jesus

 

[Pegg]

And yet the never said he was Michael

well they do actually...

Daniel said that Micheal is the one who rides forth with the angles during the last days. Jesus said the same thing about himself....that he is the one who rides forth with his angles

Daniel 12:1 “And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time. And during that time your people will escape, every one who is found written down in the book.”

Daniel also called this person, the Son of Man
Daniel 7:13 “I kept on beholding in the visions of the night, and, see there! with the clouds of the heavens someone like a son of man happened to be coming; and to the Ancient of Days he gained access, and they brought him up close even before that One. 14 And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin

Jesus, said of himself
Matthew 25:31 “When the Son of man arrives in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit down on his glorious throne. 32 And all the nations will be gathered before him
Matthew 24:30 And then the sign of the Son of man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of the earth will beat themselves in lamentation, and they will see the Son of man coming on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory.

The one who takes the throne is called the 'Son of Man', 'The prince of heaven', 'The Angel of Jehovah', 'The Prince of You People Isreal', 'Michael the Arch Angel'

These are all one and the same person....how do we know it is Jesus? Because Jesus said it was him
John 3:13 Moreover, no man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the Son of man.

 

[Wherenextcolumbus]

In response to Daniel 7:13 please read the footnote in this link
Daniel 7:13-14 NIV -
Also is Daniel 7:13 talking about Michael? And if so where does it say that?

 

[Pegg]

In response to Daniel 7:13 please read the footnote in this link
Daniel 7:13-14 NIV -

Aramaic., bar(son) enash(mortal) is the equivalent of the hebrew ben(son)-ʼenoh(mortal)sh′(man). as found in Psalm 144:3 which is translated “son of mortal man” ... so there is no issue in translating Daniel 7:13 as 'son of man'.

But alos, the christians have always applied that verse to Jesus and this could also be why it is translated as 'Son of Man'. I dont see any problem with that from either angle though.

Also is Daniel 7:13 talking about Michael? And if so where does it say that?

it is drawn from the fact that the next verse says 14 "And to him there were given rulership and dignity and kingdom, that the peoples, national groups and languages should all serve even him. His rulership is an indefinitely lasting rulership that will not pass away, and his kingdom one that will not be brought to ruin"

It is also this kingdom which will destroy all other earthly kingdoms according to Dan 2:44 and this will mark a time of distress on earth “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it itself will stand to times indefinite

And he later explains that it is during this time of distress that Michael will stand up Daniel 12:1 “And during that time Mi′cha·el will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of your people. And there will certainly occur a time of distress


So the one who takes action against the kingdoms of the world is Micheal...he is the great prince who stands up during the time of distress. Jesus told his disciples that he is the one who takes over the rulership of the heavenly kingdom.
Luke 22:29 and I make a covenant with YOU, just as my Father has made a covenant with me, for a kingdom, 30 that YOU may eat and drink at my table in my kingdom, and sit on thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel.

Micheal is Jesus. The one who is to rule the nations by Gods kingdom.