• 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!

The Trinity: Was Athanasius Scripturally Right?

SLPCCC

Active Member
There's more to it, but

No it doesn't say that explicitly "Jesus is Michael." But many scholars who are not Jehovah's Witnesses realize Jesus is Michael depending on context and application. Not all agree, however.

What scholars? Is that what the JW told you? You believe that? LOL. I would bet my year's salary that 98% of scholars don't believe that the scriptures suggest that Jesus is Michael in any way. LOL
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What scholars? Is that what the JW told you? You believe that? LOL. I would bet my year's salary that 98% of scholars don't believe that the scriptures suggest that Jesus is Michael in any way. LOL
I'll give them to you later when I have more time. How much do you make in a year? Lolol... perhaps sojourner can offer some insight here as far as theologians go about Michael. Can't say 98% of all theologians, but some do who are not Jehovah's Witnesses. I'm surprised with all your wisdom that you don't know this. Have a great day.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
While I understand your concern, the book of Daniel speaks of Daniel's people. Who were Daniel's people? It's fairly simple really. But I see neither you nor SPLCCC want to answer. Interesting...
What do you mean, I don't want to answer? What did you ask me that I didn't answer?
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I don't believe that all spiritual truth is contained within its pages. That's why I also look at traditions, writings of the early church fathers, historical records, etc.
Gotcha. But you did imply that the JW's belief that Jesus was Michael is false because the Bible doesn't teach it. The Catholic Church has a great many beliefs that are not contained in the Bible. They are based on tradition. But since you say you look at traditions, too, how do you determine which traditions are based in truth and which are not?
 

SLPCCC

Active Member
I'm surprised with all your wisdom that you don't know this. Have a great day.

No, I'm not an expert. I'm just fact-checking. I'm astonished how some false religions/cults snag people in everyday life and mold them into believing their doctrine. It's very simple. It's the use of deception, keeping their loyalty, and keeping them from fact-checking outside the box. I'm in no religion. I'm no expert. I'm just on the outside looking in and fact-checking what has been taught about the Trinity with scripture, tradition, etc.
 

SLPCCC

Active Member
Gotcha. But you did imply that the JW's belief that Jesus was Michael is false because the Bible doesn't teach it. The Catholic Church has a great many beliefs that are not contained in the Bible. They are based on tradition. But since you say you look at traditions, too, how do you determine which traditions are based in truth and which are not?

I think it should be first looked at the other way around. Not which tradition is true but which claims being proposed by the religion or cult is true. For example:

If the proposition is that Jesus is Michael, then it should follow that
  1. historical records show that the early Christians did say something about it in their writings to the early Church.
  2. scriptures show that the early Christians got the tradition and/or idea from the scriptures themselves.
  3. Conclusion: If 1 and 2 are true, then it follows that the proposition that Jesus is Michael is true and most of the historians will agree.
If we apply this to Jesus being Michael. In all cases, it would be false.

Certain vocabulary words or concepts did not exist at the time of Christ but we know that the early Christians either believed or didn't believe in the concept from their writings and together with the scriptures and traditions. For example, omnipresent omnipotent, Trinity, sola scriptura, and sola fide are concepts that are not named in the bible but came later and can be discussed using tradition and scriptures to see if it comes from them or if it's something made up.
 
Last edited:

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What do you mean, I don't want to answer? What did you ask me that I didn't answer?
Gotcha. But you did imply that the JW's belief that Jesus was Michael is false because the Bible doesn't teach it. The Catholic Church has a great many beliefs that are not contained in the Bible. They are based on tradition. But since you say you look at traditions, too, how do you determine which traditions are based in truth and which are not?
Well the question is what do you believe about Michael in the Bible? And do you believe or know if any esteemed scholars of the Bible have said that Michael is really Jesus in some passages?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I think it should be first looked at the other way around. Not which tradition is true but which claims being proposed by the religion or cult is true. For example:

If the proposition is that Jesus is Michael, then it should follow that
  1. historical records show that the early Christians did say something about it in their writings to the early Church.
  2. scriptures show that the early Christians got the tradition and/or idea from the scriptures themselves.
  3. Conclusion: If 1 and 2 are true, then it follows that the proposition that Jesus is Michael is true and most of the historians will agree.
If we apply this to Jesus being Michael. In all cases, it would be false.

Certain vocabulary words or concepts did not exist at the time of Christ but we know that the early Christians either believed or didn't believe in the concept from their writings and together with the scriptures and traditions. For example, omnipresent omnipotent, Trinity, sola scriptura, and sola fide are concepts that are not named in the bible but came later and can be discussed using tradition and scriptures to see if it comes from them or if it's something made up.
Like the line of popes coming from Peter on?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Gotcha. But you did imply that the JW's belief that Jesus was Michael is false because the Bible doesn't teach it. The Catholic Church has a great many beliefs that are not contained in the Bible. They are based on tradition. But since you say you look at traditions, too, how do you determine which traditions are based in truth and which are not?
Now THAT'S a good question, I'd love to hear the answer(s).
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
What scholars? Is that what the JW told you? You believe that? LOL. I would bet my year's salary that 98% of scholars don't believe that the scriptures suggest that Jesus is Michael in any way. LOL
Percentage doesn't really matter here and I'm not a betting person so even if I were you'd have to produce the scholars you place that 98% on. However, try this for ideas (not doctrine of course, that might be untouchable for you, who knows yet). The Catholic Bible Encyclopedia states: "It will be seen that this ‘Angel of the Lord’ often speaks and acts as Yahweh Himself." Start there with those called ANGELS...that this Angel of the Lord speaks AND ACTS, according to the Catholic encyclopedia as..YAHWEH. imagine that. Speaks and ACTS as Yahweh. Imagine that. An angel speaking and acting as ... Yahweh. (That's just one point, there's more)
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
I think it should be first looked at the other way around. Not which tradition is true but which claims being proposed by the religion or cult is true. For example:

If the proposition is that Jesus is Michael, then it should follow that
  1. historical records show that the early Christians did say something about it in their writings to the early Church.
  2. scriptures show that the early Christians got the tradition and/or idea from the scriptures themselves.
  3. Conclusion: If 1 and 2 are true, then it follows that the proposition that Jesus is Michael is true and most of the historians will agree.
If we apply this to Jesus being Michael. In all cases, it would be false.

Certain vocabulary words or concepts did not exist at the time of Christ but we know that the early Christians either believed or didn't believe in the concept from their writings and together with the scriptures and traditions. For example, omnipresent omnipotent, Trinity, sola scriptura, and sola fide are concepts that are not named in the bible but came later and can be discussed using tradition and scriptures to see if it comes from them or if it's something made up.
I pretty much agree with everything you've said here.
 

Katzpur

Not your average Mormon
Well the question is what do you believe about Michael in the Bible?
I actually believe that Michael was the pre-mortal Adam, but I'm not interested in arguing the point with you since I know we'd just be going around in circles and would never reach a conclusion we could both agree upon.

And do you believe or know if any esteemed scholars of the Bible have said that Michael is really Jesus in some passages?
I'm unaware of any non-JW scholars who believe that, but I suppose there could be some.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
I actually believe that Michael was the pre-mortal Adam, but I'm not interested in arguing the point with you since I know we'd just be going around in circles and would never reach a conclusion we could both agree upon.

I'm unaware of any non-JW scholars who believe that, but I suppose there could be some.
I'm not arguing but it would be nice sometimes to present biblical reasoning. It appears that the Catholic encyclopedia says that Catholic theology has it that an angel can be presented as ... Yahweh. That's first in the discussion about angels in the Bible being called God. Others will follow.
 

SLPCCC

Active Member
I'm not arguing but it would be nice sometimes to present biblical reasoning. It appears that the Catholic encyclopedia says that Catholic theology has it that an angel can be presented as ... Yahweh. That's first in the discussion about angels in the Bible being called God. Others will follow.

Isn't it a double standard that you are using the Catholic encyclopedia as reference when you don't even agree with everything it says? The Catholic encyclopedia also says that Mary is the mother of God. Do you agree with this? If you don't agree with this then you are just cherry-picking.
 

SLPCCC

Active Member
Some of the ways JWs undermines the Trinity is by not capitalizing and not using an article for the phrase “the Holy Spirit”. Instead, they consistently render “the Holy Spirit” as “holy spirit” omitting the article when possible.

  • "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Matt 3:11 NIV
  • “I, for my part, baptize you with water because of your repentance, but the one coming after me is stronger than I am, whose sandals I am not worthy to take off. That one will baptize you with holy spirit and with fire. NWT
Also see, Matt 1:18 and Luke 1:15



But the Holy Spirit speaks,


  • "And the Spirit said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot." Acts 8:29
  • While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." NIV Acts 13:2
Notice at Acts 8:29 the Holy Spirit uses the pronoun, “me”.

  • As Peter continued to reflect on the vision, the Spirit told him, “Three men are here looking for you. Get up! Go downstairs and accompany them without hesitation, because I have sent them.” Acts 10:19-20

The Holy Spirit is not some force like electricity.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Isn't it a double standard that you are using the Catholic encyclopedia as reference when you don't even agree with everything it says? The Catholic encyclopedia also says that Mary is the mother of God. Do you agree with this? If you don't agree with this then you are just cherry-picking.
You asked, I answered. Plus you asked for scholars not Jehovah's witnesses that say or believe Michael can be another presentation or presence of the Son of God. There you have one beginning start of non-witness scholars who determine that an angel can be identified as YAHWEH. Yet you balk? You asked, I started giving you an answer. Now you object?
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Some of the ways JWs undermines the Trinity is by not capitalizing and not using an article for the phrase “the Holy Spirit”. Instead, they consistently render “the Holy Spirit” as “holy spirit” omitting the article when possible.

  • "I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me comes one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. Matt 3:11 NIV
  • “I, for my part, baptize you with water because of your repentance, but the one coming after me is stronger than I am, whose sandals I am not worthy to take off. That one will baptize you with holy spirit and with fire. NWT
Also see, Matt 1:18 and Luke 1:15



But the Holy Spirit speaks,


  • "And the Spirit said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot." Acts 8:29
  • While they were worshiping the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them." NIV Acts 13:2
Notice at Acts 8:29 the Holy Spirit uses the pronoun, “me”.

  • As Peter continued to reflect on the vision, the Spirit told him, “Three men are here looking for you. Get up! Go downstairs and accompany them without hesitation, because I have sent them.” Acts 10:19-20

The Holy Spirit is not some force like electricity.
Lol. Anyway there's more about Michael from scholars not Jehovah's witnesses who have discerned that Michael can be the Christ. Also the prince of Daniel's people. :) have a nice evening, more to follow.
 

SLPCCC

Active Member
You asked, I answered. Plus you asked for scholars not Jehovah's witnesses that say or believe Michael can be another presentation or presence of the Son of God. There you have one beginning start of non-witness scholars who determine that an angel can be identified as YAHWEH. Yet you balk? You asked, I started giving you an answer. Now you object?
LOL keep going, what else you have? And that's not saying that Jesus is Michael but keep going. :)
 
Top