I usually troll this blog but I had to make a comment here...I couldn't resist.
I am going to Google that You Tube Video because that is going to land on my "From the Pulpit" post this coming Sunday. Along with my thoughts on it...
What's my take on it? All I have to say is summed up in one word.
"Really?"
And If I had told the Jehovah's once, I have told them a million times. Out of the 144,000 I am the second one in line.
"Why the Second?", you may ask?
The answer is elementary. It is because the 1st guy holds the door open for me!
Do you think the story is about right, though? Is Jesus really the archangel Michael? Did Jehovah destroy Jesus' body after he died and then recreate another one (or maybe even several) to make his disciples think he had really been resurrected? Will there only be 144,000 in heaven? Is Armageddon coming soon? Will only JWs survive?
The Imperial Bible-Dictionary says of Michael: "a superhuman being, in regard to whom there have in general been two rival opinions, either that he is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, or that he is one of the so-called seven archangels."
Did Jehovah destroy Jesus' body after he died and then recreate another one (or maybe even several) to make his disciples think he had really been resurrected?
No. That is the Watchtower trying to make sense out of having gotten it wrong.
When I was about, I don't know, 7 or 8 years old a little old JW lady was talking to my mom telling her about Jesus, and was explaining this to her and I corrected her. I reasoned, though never having read the Bible, that if Jesus sacrificed the body that he had, to take it back would be wrong. It would be like paying for a candy bar and then demanding the money back. She argued with me but years later the Watchtower changed their teaching to agree with me.
So that video must be quite old. I'm 44 now.
Jesus existed in heaven in spirit form before the earth was created. In fact before the angels were created. Jesus was the first of Jehovah God's creation, and all other things were created through him.
In this prehuman existence Jesus was the logos or word, in other words, spokesperson for God. When an angel appeared on earth as a man it was likely Jesus.
After his body, as Jesus, was sacrificed and he came back down as a man he used a different body, which is why they often didn't recognize him.
Will there only be 144,000 in heaven?
There will only be 144,000 people who will go to heaven in spirit form to rule with Christ and judge. Why? Because it wouldn't be fair to sinful man to be judged only by Jehovah and Christ who have never known what it is like to live in sin.
Is Armageddon coming soon?
Soon is a relative term. We are living in the time of the end, but we have been since Jesus came. It could be tomorrow or it could be a thousand years. No one knows.
Will only JWs survive?
No, and the JWs don't teach that. They will be the first to admit that there will be a resurrection of the unrighteous as well as the righteous.
You believe, "without a doubt," that Jesus is the archangel Michael. Wow. That is a strange thing for a skeptic to believe "absolutely."
But then you have such extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary belief. The Imperial Bible Dictionary. I guess that settles it.
And I'm glad to hear that "the Watchtower changed their position to agree with" you. I guess that makes you the source of the "new light" they're always talking about. You must be the "faithful and discreet slave." And you're right here commenting on my blog. What an honor.
Sheesh! So 144,000 spirit creatures are going to judge us after we die. I'd have never guessed that.
You say that "we are living in the time of the end, but we have been since Jesus came." Are you talking about the first time (when people actually saw him) or the last time (in 1914 when no one did)?
And what's this about the "resurrection of the unrighteous?" I thought you (and the JWs) believed that non-JWs ("the unrighteous") were going to just die (if they are lucky enough to die before Armageddon) and that was the end of it.
Even a skeptical natured person believes when they have good reason to believe.
The Imperial Bible Dictionary isn’t the basis for my belief, it only concurs. Lets you and me just go over the facts. I trust you know the Bible well enough for me not to have to support them with scriptural references but they can be given upon your request.
1. Jesus existed in heaven before the earth was created. He was the first of the creation and all things were created through him. So he had a pre-human existence.
2. Other than Jehovah himself, only Jesus is the only one above, or in charge of, if you like, the angels. Thus the voice of an archangel.
3. The term archangel, when used in the Bible is always in the singular. The term itself implies the foremost of the angels, so, if the Imperial Bible Dictionary is correct, that there is only two rival opinions regarding who Michael is, one that he is Jesus, or two merely one of the “so-called” seven “archangels” which is more likely to be the case?
4. There is no reason not to think Jesus and Michael are the same.
I once posted a list, it might have been at the SAB forum, about “a mile long” (with about 50 or more names) with references to Bible scholars and Bible resources other than the Watchtower who thought Michael was Jesus.
Regarding the resurrection of the unrighteous consider this:
Act 24:15 (NWT) and I have hope toward God, which hope these [men] themselves also entertain, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.
And from the Reasoning From Scripture book, under “Resurrection” published by the Watchtower:
“Acts 24:15: “I have hope toward God . . . that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Both those who lived in harmony with God’s righteous ways and people who, out of ignorance, did unrighteous things will be resurrected. The Bible does not answer all our questions as to whether certain specific individuals who have died will be resurrected. But we can be confident that God, who knows all the facts, will act impartially, with justice tempered by mercy that does not ignore his righteous standards. Compare Genesis 18:25.)”
"Even a skeptical natured person believes when they have good reason to believe".
I see no good reason to believe in a book that has no provable factual basis, has been mis-translated several times over, and cannot be proved to be an accurate record of historical events. For example, you quote Genesis. Who wrote this? When? Is what you read what was originally written? You quote Acts: are you aware of the errors made in translation (read, for example, "Misquoting Jesus")
All of your points need to be proved with facts not opinion, otherwise everything you say has no credibility.
You have to ask yourself the same questions as you would ask me. How do you know the Bible isn't correct?
How do I answer your question? I know where it is and where it isn't correct and why and I have, no doubt, put a great deal more thought into it than any skeptic, atheist, agnostic, etc. I have ever encountered.
Moses wrote Genesis in the wilderness in 1513 B.C.E.
Most of the errors you vaguely refer to are only errors in your understanding. Though there are errors in translation, and I am aware of those.
A study was once conducted in which a thousand years of translation of the book of Isaiah was compared, and within a chapter there were three letters, a scribal error, which added the word "light" and didn't change the meaning of the text.
To assume there must be all of these errors which completely change the meaning is an atheist flaw in thinking. Not really thinking, just ignorantly repeating whay you have heard.
There are two problems with your criticizing the Bible for its being incorrect regarding the age of the Earth and Universe.
1. Over the last 100 years science has changed its estimation of the age of the universe many times, so just because the Bible doesn't aggree with science doesn't mean the Bible is the one in error.
2. The Bible doesn't actually state the age of the Earth or the Universe and it certainly doesn't state that they were created in 6 literal days, or 144 hours.
@PM Science CORRECTED itself, AND THE SAME TIME got abolutly sure the Bible is in absolute mistake.
And yes, the Bible DO states the 6K year age (if you really need, I can give full data here), and it DO states literal days.
Anyway: the Bible provides SCIENTIFIC TESTS for validation of gods (any god, including Jealous). As Jealous FAILS those tests, there is the 100% proof that the Bible is incorrect bullshit, not worth to follow by its own standards.
But you want more failed datas? Just a quick list: - No garden of Eden guarded by cherubim anywhere - No global flood ever - No egyptian captivity - No Exodus - No military conquest of Joshua, especially not any jewish attack on city of Ai - Insects have 3 pair of limbs (= 6 in all) not 2 pair (= 4 legs) - No zombies recorded in ancient Jerusalem - The world did not end 2000 years ago
More reference regarding Jesus as Michael the archangel.
Clarke's Commentary (Adam Clarke) - "Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings. There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all the angelic host .... Michael is this archangel, and head of all the angelic orders .... hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus." _________________________
W. E. Vine - the "voice of the archangel" (1 Thessalonians 4:16) is apparently "the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ" - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 64. _________________________
The 1599 Geneva Study Bible: Christ is the Prince of angels and head of the Church, who bears that iron rod." _________________________
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia: - "The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev. 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel" – vol. 3, p. 2048, Eerdmans Publishing, 1984 printing. _________________________
John Calvin: "I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." - J. Calvin, Commentaries On The Book Of The Prophet Daniel, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369. _________________________
Brown's Dictionary of the Bible - on 'Michael' and 'Angel,' both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel. _________________________
The NIV Study Bible - "The Angel of the LORD .... Traditional Christian interpretation has held that this 'angel' was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God's Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of the One who sent him." - footnote for Gen. 16:7. Zondervan Publishing, 1985 _________________________
Smith's Bible Dictionary - "Angel of the Lord. ... Christ's visible form before the incarnation. p. 40" _________________________
Today's Dictionary of the Bible - "Angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant." Bethany House Publ., 1982, p. 39
Not really thinking, just ignorantly repeating whay you have heard.
I know because I used to be an atheist.
I hate to be the bearer of such bad news, but just because you are ignorant, it doesn't necessarily follow that all atheists are, too.
Reading your attempts to "prove" your points, I'm reminded of the Bethesda Softworks fora, where you can find many posts explaining the minutiae of the Elder Scrolls, and myriad responses debating said opinions.
18 comments:
I usually troll this blog but I had to make a comment here...I couldn't resist.
I am going to Google that You Tube Video because that is going to land on my "From the Pulpit" post this coming Sunday. Along with my thoughts on it...
What's my take on it? All I have to say is summed up in one word.
"Really?"
And If I had told the Jehovah's once, I have told them a million times. Out of the 144,000 I am the second one in line.
"Why the Second?", you may ask?
The answer is elementary. It is because the 1st guy holds the door open for me!
Laugh at Joker
Wow! That must really be old. It reminded me of some of the Saturday morning cartoons I watched as a kid.
I thought the original Jesus story was a bit contrived to be honest, but now it finally makes sense!
Yeah, PM, it sounds like the old cartoons.
Do you think the story is about right, though? Is Jesus really the archangel Michael? Did Jehovah destroy Jesus' body after he died and then recreate another one (or maybe even several) to make his disciples think he had really been resurrected? Will there only be 144,000 in heaven? Is Armageddon coming soon? Will only JWs survive?
I think they stole that raised sword cut-away from He-Man. By the power of Grayskull, Archangel Michael has the power! :-)
That is seriously messed up!
As explanations go, that makes as much sense as any of the other supernatural ones.
I can't see how any Christian could seriously criticise it.
Sceptics on the other.... :-)
Do you think the story is about right, though?
Not exactly.
Is Jesus really the archangel Michael?
Without a doubt.
The Imperial Bible-Dictionary says of Michael: "a superhuman being, in regard to whom there have in general been two rival opinions, either that he is the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, or that he is one of the so-called seven archangels."
Did Jehovah destroy Jesus' body after he died and then recreate another one (or maybe even several) to make his disciples think he had really been resurrected?
No. That is the Watchtower trying to make sense out of having gotten it wrong.
When I was about, I don't know, 7 or 8 years old a little old JW lady was talking to my mom telling her about Jesus, and was explaining this to her and I corrected her. I reasoned, though never having read the Bible, that if Jesus sacrificed the body that he had, to take it back would be wrong. It would be like paying for a candy bar and then demanding the money back. She argued with me but years later the Watchtower changed their teaching to agree with me.
So that video must be quite old. I'm 44 now.
Jesus existed in heaven in spirit form before the earth was created. In fact before the angels were created. Jesus was the first of Jehovah God's creation, and all other things were created through him.
In this prehuman existence Jesus was the logos or word, in other words, spokesperson for God. When an angel appeared on earth as a man it was likely Jesus.
After his body, as Jesus, was sacrificed and he came back down as a man he used a different body, which is why they often didn't recognize him.
Will there only be 144,000 in heaven?
There will only be 144,000 people who will go to heaven in spirit form to rule with Christ and judge. Why? Because it wouldn't be fair to sinful man to be judged only by Jehovah and Christ who have never known what it is like to live in sin.
Is Armageddon coming soon?
Soon is a relative term. We are living in the time of the end, but we have been since Jesus came. It could be tomorrow or it could be a thousand years. No one knows.
Will only JWs survive?
No, and the JWs don't teach that. They will be the first to admit that there will be a resurrection of the unrighteous as well as the righteous.
PM,
You believe, "without a doubt," that Jesus is the archangel Michael. Wow. That is a strange thing for a skeptic to believe "absolutely."
But then you have such extraordinary evidence for your extraordinary belief. The Imperial Bible Dictionary. I guess that settles it.
And I'm glad to hear that "the Watchtower changed their position to agree with" you. I guess that makes you the source of the "new light" they're always talking about. You must be the "faithful and discreet slave." And you're right here commenting on my blog. What an honor.
Sheesh! So 144,000 spirit creatures are going to judge us after we die. I'd have never guessed that.
You say that "we are living in the time of the end, but we have been since Jesus came." Are you talking about the first time (when people actually saw him) or the last time (in 1914 when no one did)?
And what's this about the "resurrection of the unrighteous?" I thought you (and the JWs) believed that non-JWs ("the unrighteous") were going to just die (if they are lucky enough to die before Armageddon) and that was the end of it.
"There will only be 144,000 people who will go to heaven in spirit form to rule with Christ and judge. "
It'll be like X Factor but with more judges then ?
Do we know if Simon Cowell will be a judge ?
Paul,
For my sake, I hope the judges are a great deal more forgiving than Simon Cowell.
Steve,
Even a skeptical natured person believes when they have good reason to believe.
The Imperial Bible Dictionary isn’t the basis for my belief, it only concurs. Lets you and me just go over the facts. I trust you know the Bible well enough for me not to have to support them with scriptural references but they can be given upon your request.
1. Jesus existed in heaven before the earth was created. He was the first of the creation and all things were created through him. So he had a pre-human existence.
2. Other than Jehovah himself, only Jesus is the only one above, or in charge of, if you like, the angels. Thus the voice of an archangel.
3. The term archangel, when used in the Bible is always in the singular. The term itself implies the foremost of the angels, so, if the Imperial Bible Dictionary is correct, that there is only two rival opinions regarding who Michael is, one that he is Jesus, or two merely one of the “so-called” seven “archangels” which is more likely to be the case?
4. There is no reason not to think Jesus and Michael are the same.
I once posted a list, it might have been at the SAB forum, about “a mile long” (with about 50 or more names) with references to Bible scholars and Bible resources other than the Watchtower who thought Michael was Jesus.
Regarding the resurrection of the unrighteous consider this:
Act 24:15 (NWT) and I have hope toward God, which hope these [men] themselves also entertain, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.
And from the Reasoning From Scripture book, under “Resurrection” published by the Watchtower:
“Acts 24:15: “I have hope toward God . . . that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous.” (Both those who lived in harmony with God’s righteous ways and people who, out of ignorance, did unrighteous things will be resurrected. The Bible does not answer all our questions as to whether certain specific individuals who have died will be resurrected. But we can be confident that God, who knows all the facts, will act impartially, with justice tempered by mercy that does not ignore his righteous standards. Compare Genesis 18:25.)”
TPM,
How do you know that the Bible is correct?
"Even a skeptical natured person believes when they have good reason to believe".
I see no good reason to believe in a book that has no provable factual basis, has been mis-translated several times over, and cannot be proved to be an accurate record of historical events. For example, you quote Genesis. Who wrote this? When? Is what you read what was originally written? You quote Acts: are you aware of the errors made in translation (read, for example, "Misquoting Jesus")
All of your points need to be proved with facts not opinion, otherwise everything you say has no credibility.
MagpieinMadrid,
You have to ask yourself the same questions as you would ask me. How do you know the Bible isn't correct?
How do I answer your question? I know where it is and where it isn't correct and why and I have, no doubt, put a great deal more thought into it than any skeptic, atheist, agnostic, etc. I have ever encountered.
Moses wrote Genesis in the wilderness in 1513 B.C.E.
Most of the errors you vaguely refer to are only errors in your understanding. Though there are errors in translation, and I am aware of those.
A study was once conducted in which a thousand years of translation of the book of Isaiah was compared, and within a chapter there were three letters, a scribal error, which added the word "light" and didn't change the meaning of the text.
To assume there must be all of these errors which completely change the meaning is an atheist flaw in thinking. Not really thinking, just ignorantly repeating whay you have heard.
I know because I used to be an atheist.
Wow, PM's believes really grew odd way!
Anyway, where to know the Bible is a failure? How about CHECKING THE DATAS?
The Bible says Earth (and the Universe) = ca. 6K years old. Fact is, Earth = 4.5 billion years old, theUniverse is 15 billion (or older maybe).
And so on, and so on.
Maybe PM overthinked this if he still think it is flawles...
twillight,
There are two problems with your criticizing the Bible for its being incorrect regarding the age of the Earth and Universe.
1. Over the last 100 years science has changed its estimation of the age of the universe many times, so just because the Bible doesn't aggree with science doesn't mean the Bible is the one in error.
2. The Bible doesn't actually state the age of the Earth or the Universe and it certainly doesn't state that they were created in 6 literal days, or 144 hours.
@PM
Science CORRECTED itself, AND THE SAME TIME got abolutly sure the Bible is in absolute mistake.
And yes, the Bible DO states the 6K year age (if you really need, I can give full data here), and it DO states literal days.
Anyway: the Bible provides SCIENTIFIC TESTS for validation of gods (any god, including Jealous). As Jealous FAILS those tests, there is the 100% proof that the Bible is incorrect bullshit, not worth to follow by its own standards.
But you want more failed datas? Just a quick list:
- No garden of Eden guarded by cherubim anywhere
- No global flood ever
- No egyptian captivity
- No Exodus
- No military conquest of Joshua, especially not any jewish attack on city of Ai
- Insects have 3 pair of limbs (= 6 in all) not 2 pair (= 4 legs)
- No zombies recorded in ancient Jerusalem
- The world did not end 2000 years ago
More reference regarding Jesus as Michael the archangel.
Clarke's Commentary (Adam Clarke) - "Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings. There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all the angelic host .... Michael is this archangel, and head of all the angelic orders .... hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus."
_________________________
W. E. Vine - the "voice of the archangel" (1 Thessalonians 4:16) is apparently "the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ" - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 64.
_________________________
The 1599 Geneva Study Bible: Christ is the Prince of angels and head of the Church, who bears that iron rod."
_________________________
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia: - "The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev. 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel" – vol. 3, p. 2048, Eerdmans Publishing, 1984 printing.
_________________________
John Calvin: "I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." - J. Calvin, Commentaries On The Book Of The Prophet Daniel, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.
_________________________
Brown's Dictionary of the Bible - on 'Michael' and 'Angel,' both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel.
_________________________
The NIV Study Bible - "The Angel of the LORD .... Traditional Christian interpretation has held that this 'angel' was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God's Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of the One who sent him." - footnote for Gen. 16:7. Zondervan Publishing, 1985
_________________________
Smith's Bible Dictionary - "Angel of the Lord. ... Christ's visible form before the incarnation. p. 40"
_________________________
Today's Dictionary of the Bible - "Angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant." Bethany House Publ., 1982, p. 39
Not really thinking, just ignorantly repeating whay you have heard.
I know because I used to be an atheist.
I hate to be the bearer of such bad news, but just because you are ignorant, it doesn't necessarily follow that all atheists are, too.
Reading your attempts to "prove" your points, I'm reminded of the Bethesda Softworks fora, where you can find many posts explaining the minutiae of the Elder Scrolls, and myriad responses debating said opinions.
Post a Comment