YoursTrue
Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Lol you are the expert aren't you?I don't know tell us.
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Lol you are the expert aren't you?I don't know tell us.
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.
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.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
What do you mean, I don't want to answer? What did you ask me that I didn't answer?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...
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 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.
I'm surprised with all your wisdom that you don't know this. Have a great day.
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?
What do you mean, I don't want to answer? What did you ask me that I didn't answer?
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?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?
Like the line of popes coming from Peter on?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
If we apply this to Jesus being Michael. In all cases, it would be false.
- historical records show that the early Christians did say something about it in their writings to the early Church.
- scriptures show that the early Christians got the tradition and/or idea from the scriptures themselves.
- 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.
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.
Now THAT'S a good question, I'd love to hear the answer(s).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?
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)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
Like the line of popes coming from Peter on?
I pretty much agree with everything you've said here.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
If we apply this to Jesus being Michael. In all cases, it would be false.
- historical records show that the early Christians did say something about it in their writings to the early Church.
- scriptures show that the early Christians got the tradition and/or idea from the scriptures themselves.
- 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.
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 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.Well the question is what do you believe about Michael in the Bible?
I'm unaware of any non-JW scholars who believe that, but I suppose there could be some.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 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.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.
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?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.
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.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
Also see, Matt 1:18 and Luke 1:15
- “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
But the Holy Spirit speaks,
- "And the Spirit said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot." Acts 8:29
Notice at Acts 8:29 the Holy Spirit uses the pronoun, “me”.
- 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
- 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 keep going, what else you have? And that's not saying that Jesus is Michael but keep going.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?