• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

JW's Jesus is Archangel Michael?

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The deception they teach!

*** w11 5/15 p. 26 Following Christ, the Perfect Leader ***

Shortly before his death, Jesus mentioned another way in which we can follow his leadership. He said: “He that receives anyone I send receives me also.” (John 13:20) In fact, Jesus spoke of his anointed representatives as his “brothers.” (Matt. 25:40)

Mat 25:40 (ESVST) 40 And the King will answer them, 'Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.'

I love how they take verses out of context to promote the GB! These are the brothers Jesus is talking about. Jesus never said "anointed brothers"!

Mat 25:35-39 (ESVST) 35 For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me. ' 37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying, ' Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? 38 And when did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? 39 And when did we see you sick or in prison and visit you? '
Good point! I have asked Jehovah's Witnesses how any member of the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses can consider themself "least" of Christ's brothers, but nobody has answered that. For goodness sakes they profess to be the only ones who can hear and understand God's messages. That means greatest not least.
 

kjw47

Well-Known Member
The meaning of the name "Jesus" is "Jah is salvation" (in English) The words YHVH (Jehovah) and salvation are together many times in the ancient script. Please do not pretend you know how the ancients wrote.


Yes Jehovah is salvation, he is the only power in existence. He does it through Jesus( Acts 2:22
 

kjw47

Well-Known Member
Do you read what you write before you post it?

"Michael and Jesus are the same being, was there a Jesus ever mentioned in the OT? "NO". So if Jesus was never mentioned in the OT, and "JESUS" didn't exist until He was born, how could it have been "JESUS" that created all things? It had to be the being called "MICHAEL" not Jesus. According to you, they are the same being, but different rolls. It was the "ROLE" of Michael, according to you, that was in the beginning, not the role of Jesus. You cannot say that the role of Jesus created all things because that role didn't exist.


Gods word shows it the way it is written--you are just twisting it to say what you want it to say.
 

djhwoodwerks

Well-Known Member
Gods word shows it the way it is written--you are just twisting it to say what you want it to say.

Please explain how "I" am twisting anything, I just quoted what you said. You said, "Michael and Jesus are the same being, was there a Jesus ever mentioned in the OT? No" That is what "YOU" said. So according to your logic, there was no Jesus in the OT, it was Michael in the beginning with God, not Jesus. The role, or name, or what ever else you want to call it, of Jesus did not exist in the beginning, Michael did.

Mat 1:20-21 (ESVST) 21 She will bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins."

In your logic, neither the role, the name or the person of Jesus existed until He was born. So please explain how "HE" created all things.
 

djhwoodwerks

Well-Known Member
It really amazes me how JW's will believe that the GB are really the slave because of this question.

Mat 24:45 (ESVST) 45 "Who then is the faithful and wise servant, whom his master has set over his household, to give them their food at the proper time?

And it amazes me how they come to actually believe that this statement means Jesus is Michael.

1Th 4:15-16 (ESVST) 16 For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God.

How can anyone build doctrines on one verse? And one of those verses is a question! Are there any other verses to validate these doctrines?
 

Yoshua

Well-Known Member
I am not presently a JW. I studied with them for twenty years and am baptized a JW. Technically people like me who are not disfellowshipped or disassociated are still Jehovah's Witnesses. It is how I was trained in the Bible. But I have my own ideas.

What question do you have?
Hi Savagewind,

In my post no. 304 & 305, those are my pending questions to Jay. I believe that he already left the RF. Kindly check it out.

Thanks
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Hi Jay,
What is the connection with the Hebrew scripture and the writings with the JW organization? How do you connect and reconcile it?
It seems like a broad subject. The men who become governing body members believe the interpretation of both the ot and nt is reserved for them alone. Are you asking how JWs connect the new with the old? The connection is Jesus Christ.


Then it is clearly emphasized a judgment at the end of the age to separate the unsaved from the saved since this is concerning the kingdom. From this parable until the current settings, what will be the effect of apostasy here? How do you reconcile this parable to the JW org.?
JWs believe that by their preaching people get separated into two groups. The sheep believe them and the goats don't.


Well it is clear that—if the wheat and tares parables does not convey to start a new church, those verses proves that apostasy is not a reason for a church to re-establish; to form a group investigation and start a new organization. Jesus and Paul warned about the coming of false prophets, and how the man of lawlessness will influence the early church.

1 Peter 5:10-11
10. And after you have suffered for a little while, the God of all grace, who called you to His eternal glory in Christ, will Himself perfect, confirm, strengthen and establish you.
11. To Him be dominion forever and ever. Amen.

Jesus and Paul warned us, and told us to do the following:
a. Stand firm (Matt.24;13; 2 Thess. 2:15)

b. The gospel shall be preached in the whole world (Matt. 24:14)
c. We testify to all nations (Matt 24:14)
d. Be on Guard ( Acts 20:31)
e. Command and teach these things. (1 Tim. 4:11)


I encouraged you to do a biblical study.

Why should I will be in shame if there is a Reformation transpired from Roman Catholicism? This only proves that the Scripture is alive and penetrates the heart of everyone. JW, Mormons, Church of Christ/INC, and 7th Day Adv. claimed that there is apostasy to produce a new church, and a need of cleansing by a certain person
(a prophet, man sent by God, a Bible student, a preacher etc.) Did you know about this?

People are born different, and that is healthy to know that we are not a puppet or robot. Those churches always shouted the word “Unity,” but in reality they are only united physically as an organization with one Man behind the church. Protestants may have a denomination, but united in spirit. We are not forced by an organized body to be a puppet. Kindly check our Statement of Faith, we are truly united in spirit and truth in Christ Jesus, and not by the Reformers.


Dan. 12:9-13
9. And he said, "Go your way, Daniel, for these words are concealed and sealed up until the end time.
10. "Many will be purged, purified and refined; but the wicked will act wickedly, and none of the wicked will understand, but those who have insight will understand.
11. "And from the time that the regular sacrifice is abolished, and the abomination of desolation is set up, there will be 1,290 days.
12. "How blessed is he who keeps waiting and attains to the 1,335 days!
13. "But as for you, go your way to the end; then you will enter into rest and rise again for your allotted portion at the end of the age."
If there is no foretelling of a new church, then why prophesy, calculate, and have faith to Russell and company? If you believe Jesus clean up Jewish religion, then why JW should be dependent and have faith to what Russell and company did? Russell is not Jesus.
The JWs fashion themselves after the early Christian congregation.



Did the Mormons, and Iglesia Ni kristo(Church of Christ) and other churches claimed there is apostasy and should not be divided? How about them? Who among you stand for the truth of “No division church”?
Nobody does imo.

Oh. Come on. Where did you get that idea? It seems you are saying after Paul died, no other Christians left to propagate the gospel?? Do you think an Apologist cannot preach the gospel? He cannot be an apologist if he does not know the basic of the gospel. How he will defend his faith if he is not capable of knowing the gospel and heretic teachings during their time? Please think about it.

You are also saying that Christ suffered for nothing and that is discarding Christ sufferings for our salvation by shedding His blood. What’s the use of Jesus and Paul’s preaching if at the end there will be an apostasy that needs cleansing and refining (by JW interpretation), and resulted to a new church or teachings. Therefore, it will come out that Jesus and Paul served only as--least important in Christianity, thus, Russell and company served as the priority ( very important) in Christianity.
They can't see that though it is real.
I am surprised that you despite your attitude of superiority do not discern that this kind of arguing is forbidden.
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Hi Savagewind,

In my post no. 304 & 305, those are my pending questions to Jay. I believe that he already left the RF. Kindly check it out.

Thanks
I tried to answer #304 (see above) It looks like #305 is arguing Jesus Christ vs God. I do not do that. They do, but Jay (a lady) might have you on ignore and she is gone, and I do not blame her.
 

Yoshua

Well-Known Member
I tried to answer #304 (see above) It looks like #305 is arguing Jesus Christ vs God. I do not do that. They do, but Jay (a lady) might have you on ignore and she is gone, and I do not blame her.
Thanks. I thought she is a man. Anyway, I'll get back to you for my reply.
 

Yoshua

Well-Known Member
It seems like a broad subject. The men who become governing body members believe the interpretation of both the ot and nt is reserved for them alone. Are you asking how JWs connect the new with the old? The connection is Jesus Christ.
Not really. According to our discussion, we confirmed that the JW organization started by Russell and his group. They discovered what is happening in Christendom, they seek and investigated and started the JW organization. This is what Jay stated:

And that is just what happened. The apostles had only the Hebrew Scriptures.....we have their writings and the Christian "traditions" handed down by them is I n the Christian scriptures, not in the traditions of an apostate church system. Do you understand the difference? By Jay

“They undertook a careful study of the scriptures to see if Christendom's doctrines stood up to scrutiny. They basically dismissed all prior knowledge and started from scratch. They allowed the Bible itself to teach them under the direction of God's spirit.
From their studies, they concluded that the core doctrines of Christendom were not scriptural. The 'cleansing and refining' foretold by Daniel, had begun......but like all refining work, it was a process of bringing the impurities to the surface and eliminating them, one by one.”By Jay


What I would like to know if how the JW will reconcile the validity of Russell findings or investigation in relation to the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ?
Russell did their investigation last 1800’s in compared with the time of Christ last 2,000 years ago.

JWs believe that by their preaching people get separated into two groups. The sheep believe them and the goats don't.
I would like to clarify the relationship between the saved and unsaved in the end of the age with the JW organization that was started by Russell and his group.

The JWs fashion themselves after the early Christian congregation.
After early Christian congregation, what is the date or year? How will you reconcile the duration of the early Christian congregation and the Russell groups last 1800’s?

They can't see that though it is real.
I am surprised that you despite your attitude of superiority do not discern that this kind of arguing is forbidden.
I’m just asking in a logical way of question and explained the result of the consequence. How I do question? Can you cite an example what is not forbidden so I may modify?

Thanks
 

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Not really. According to our discussion, we confirmed that the JW organization started by Russell and his group. They discovered what is happening in Christendom, they seek and investigated and started the JW organization. This is what Jay stated:

And that is just what happened. The apostles had only the Hebrew Scriptures.....we have their writings and the Christian "traditions" handed down by them is I n the Christian scriptures, not in the traditions of an apostate church system. Do you understand the difference? By Jay

“They undertook a careful study of the scriptures to see if Christendom's doctrines stood up to scrutiny. They basically dismissed all prior knowledge and started from scratch. They allowed the Bible itself to teach them under the direction of God's spirit.
From their studies, they concluded that the core doctrines of Christendom were not scriptural. The 'cleansing and refining' foretold by Daniel, had begun......but like all refining work, it was a process of bringing the impurities to the surface and eliminating them, one by one.”By Jay


What I would like to know if how the JW will reconcile the validity of Russell findings or investigation in relation to the Bible and the teachings of Jesus Christ?
Russell did their investigation last 1800’s in compared with the time of Christ last 2,000 years ago.


I would like to clarify the relationship between the saved and unsaved in the end of the age with the JW organization that was started by Russell and his group.


After early Christian congregation, what is the date or year? How will you reconcile the duration of the early Christian congregation and the Russell groups last 1800’s?


I’m just asking in a logical way of question and explained the result of the consequence. How I do question? Can you cite an example what is not forbidden so I may modify?

Thanks
A real quick answer for you is they believe in progressing light. They seem to believe that all people who will keep searching for righteousness will eventually become Jehovah's Witnesses like they are. They do not follow Russells's teachings. They believe no one else is a real searcher of truth if that person won't agree with their way because they keep saying they alone "will be corrected". According to them we are not interested in learning the truth about Jehovah and Jesus and their evidence is we are not with them.
Your question, 'how are the teachings of Russell and scripture reconciled' is not moot with them. Russell was the beginning of their group. That is all.

An idea I just had. Paul was given a revelation of the truth in one day. They do not believe that is how God works now.
 

Yoshua

Well-Known Member
A real quick answer for you is they believe in progressing light. They seem to believe that all people who will keep searching for righteousness will eventually become Jehovah's Witnesses like they are. They do not follow Russells's teachings. They believe no one else is a real searcher of truth if that person won't agree with their way because they keep saying they alone "will be corrected". According to them we are not interested in learning the truth about Jehovah and Jesus and their evidence is we are not with them.
Your question, 'how are the teachings of Russell and scripture reconciled' is not moot with them. Russell was the beginning of their group. That is all.

An idea I just had. Paul was given a revelation of the truth in one day. They do not believe that is how God works now.
The statement that they did not follow Russell's teaching is quite blurred to me. If we may ask them, that they will continue to believe the Scripture without Russell, and do do they (will) believe without Russell? I believe they surely will not agree with it. If they believe that Russell is the searcher of truth, then Martin Luther and other Reformers is also considered a searcher of truth. But take a look with their differences on how they delivered with their searching, Luther enlightened with the truth but we are not conformed to his writings. He did not add any doctrine that is contrary with the Scripture while for Russell, he formulated a teachings that becomes one of the JW's foundation. We don't look at Knox, Luther, Calvin as our foundation of the teachings of Christ, but as our brothers who awakened in God's truth, and saw the truth under the bondage of Roman Catholicism including the practices that is not biblical.

If I'm right, I remember that you told me that you're a JW but not the same JW like Jay. So, what is your faith now and your position?
 

Mountain_Climber

Active Member
When a child is born, he/she is not born alien to the US. When a child is born he/she is born alienated from God because he/she was conceived and born in sin.
Apples and oranges.

That has nothing to do with the point if you would but think it through. We are speaking about inherited sin nature and not about the loss of sanctification through the parent.

Inherited sin nature means the child is born having sin's nature already incorporated into it's person. That is an entirely different matter than is sanctification through having clean parents. If your father and mother were kicked out of a country and you were as a consequence born out of that country, then you would not be born with any right to citizenship in that country. And that is not due to defect in you. It is based solely on the fact that your father and mother could not qualify you for that citizenship.

But keep up with the objections in resistance of accepting the truth that the teaching of an inborn inherited sin nature is a false man-made doctrine. It would seem that the sheer fact you don't find that expression used in the scripture anywhere would be enough but apparently it isn't for many. Yes, the scriptures can be twisted and misrepresented so as to make it seem that the concept is there. But that will never make it actually be there in truth.

Why do you resist that Paul clearly said that by one man sin ENTERED THE WORLD? Romans 5:12

Is an infants body the world in your mind?
 
Last edited:

djhwoodwerks

Well-Known Member
Apples and oranges.

That has nothing to do with the point if you would but think it through. We are speaking about inherited sin nature and not about the loss of sanctification through the parent.

Inherited sin nature means the child is born having sin's nature already incorporated into it's person. That is an entirely different matter than is sanctification through having clean parents. If your father and mother were kicked out of a country and you were as a consequence born out of that country, then you would not be born with any right to citizenship in that country. And that is not due to defect in you. It is based solely on the fact that your father and mother could not qualify you for that citizenship.

But keep up with the objections in resistance of accepting the truth that the teaching of an inborn inherited sin nature is a false man-made doctrine. It would seem that the sheer fact you don't find that expression used in the scripture anywhere would be enough but apparently it isn't for many. Yes, the scriptures can be twisted and misrepresented so as to make it seem that the concept is there. But that will never make it actually be there in truth.

Why do you resist that Paul clearly said that by one man sin ENTERED THE WORLD? Romans 5:12

Is an infants body the world in your mind?

Oranges and apples.

Rom 3:22-23 (ESVST) For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (There is no distinction between kids and adults, wouldn't this be the perfect place to make that distinction?)

Rom 3:9-12 (ESVST) 10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. (Another great place to make that distinction)


Is there a verse or teaching in the Bible that teaches the age of accountability or that an infant is sanctified by his/her parents? Why did God have all the children in the cities of the OT killed along with the adults? Did He have innocent children killed?
 

Mountain_Climber

Active Member
Oranges and apples.

Rom 3:22-23 (ESVST) For there is no distinction: 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (There is no distinction between kids and adults, wouldn't this be the perfect place to make that distinction?)

Rom 3:9-12 (ESVST) 10 as it is written: "None is righteous, no, not one; 11 no one understands; no one seeks for God.12 All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. (Another great place to make that distinction)


Is there a verse or teaching in the Bible that teaches the age of accountability or that an infant is sanctified by his/her parents? Why did God have all the children in the cities of the OT killed along with the adults? Did He have innocent children killed?

An infant has not had time to make the choices upon which it would stand or fall as to the glory of God.

Righteous is as righteous does or can you not even figure that out for yourself? And again an infant has had not time to do.

Like the total contradiction in your closing question here. Your point in the first part goes totally opposite what you were driving at in second part. But the why is that the child is the ward of it's parent. The child is the responsibility of the parent. The same reason we die because Adam sinned. As Levi made tithes to Melchizedek while in Abraham's loins we can be said to have sinned while in Adam's loins. That merely credits the fact that we would be bound to eventually do so anyway.

Where you miss the boat is that you are like those who think that if we could have gone on from birth to never commit sin then that would mean God would have to let us live forever. But the covenant of life was not made with us. That covenant was made with the one who lost it. And when he lost it he lost it for all that was his. Adam as the son of God was the image of Jesus in whom all things exist. Just as the last Adam has now become the holder of our covenant of life, the first Adam held that covenant of life with God that we might have life in him. But the first holder of that covenant with God on our behalf lost it so that we needed a new covenant bearer to replace him. Thus came the last Adam.

If after he obtained it and before having children Jacob had lost the right to the covenant with him as Israel, there would have been no covenant with Israel. God would have had to seek out a new covenant bearer and the covenant would have been given to that new covenant bearer's children instead of Jacob's children.

You evidently do not fully appreciate just how great God's mercy was even to let Adam's children live. You seem to think God owes you something when the fact is that we owe him and he us us nothing at all. He never did owe man anything and never will.
 
Last edited:

djhwoodwerks

Well-Known Member
Like the total contradiction in your closing question here. Your point in the first part goes totally opposite what you were driving at in second part. But the why is that the child is the ward of it's parent. The child is the responsibility of the parent. The same reason we die because Adam sinned. As Levi made tithes to Melchizedek while in Abraham's loins we can be said to have sinned while in Adam's loins. That merely credits the fact that we would be bound to eventually do so anyway.

So you're implying that, if a child, born to unbelieving parents, dies before he/she can understand and accept the ransom of Jesus, that child is condemned because his/her parents are condemned. But if a child is born to believing parents, that child is sanctified by his/her parents?
 

Mountain_Climber

Active Member
So you're implying that, if a child, born to unbelieving parents, dies before he/she can understand and accept the ransom of Jesus, that child is condemned because his/her parents are condemned. But if a child is born to believing parents, that child is sanctified by his/her parents?
The same as the children and infants were put to death along with their parents in many of the nations God destroyed throughout history.

I also know that the principal reason this truth has been avoided is that this seems out of whack as compared to man's sense of justice. But the reality is that it isn't a violation of justice. The justice of this world and thus our reference with which we gloat in ourselves and make comparisons to God is what is out of whack.

Who is going to call God to an accounting for it? He creates life and he reserves the full say over life to himself.

1 Samuel 15:3 "Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***."

He has his reasons and it is ours only to obey him that this happens to none of us and ours.

The self-righteous man would dare to challenge him to his own defeat. Many of them would even exclaim that they would rather die than serve a God who is like that. Too bad for them.

But once he restores this earth to holiness it will stay that way by virtue of who and how he is. He then will tolerate nothing further from us by way of our unappreciative rebellions. And when God wipes this earth clean of the wicked their infants will die with them.

When one takes what is said at places as Ezekiel 18 out of context one can wrongly conclude that God would not be so harsh a judge. But what is said there does not negate the following:
Exodus 20:5 "Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me.."

What need be maintained in mind when pondering that of Ezekiel 18 is that God is there speaking of how he treats a nation that has loved and obeyed him and what is said applies to the individual conduct of the members of such a nation that loves and obeys him.
 
Last edited:

savagewind

Veteran Member
Premium Member
The statement that they did not follow Russell's teaching is quite blurred to me. If we may ask them, that they will continue to believe the Scripture without Russell, and do do they (will) believe without Russell? I believe they surely will not agree with it. If they believe that Russell is the searcher of truth, then Martin Luther and other Reformers is also considered a searcher of truth. But take a look with their differences on how they delivered with their searching, Luther enlightened with the truth but we are not conformed to his writings. He did not add any doctrine that is contrary with the Scripture while for Russell, he formulated a teachings that becomes one of the JW's foundation. We don't look at Knox, Luther, Calvin as our foundation of the teachings of Christ, but as our brothers who awakened in God's truth, and saw the truth under the bondage of Roman Catholicism including the practices that is not biblical.
I think this is reasonable.

If I'm right, I remember that you told me that you're a JW but not the same JW like Jay. So, what is your faith now and your position?
I believe in Jesus Christ, son of God, my savior. My position? I do not know. What does it mean?
Jay is an ultra-conservative JW, imo. I was baptized a JW and was taught the Bible by JWs but I am convinced they are nothing like "the truth" like they say they are.
 
Top