I'd explain the settlement but it's off topic. We are talking about Michael, not about Jesus.
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!
from an exoteric view sure....That is a really really really really old argument It's been settled.
There are people now, whose chosen profession is to be making more people like they are, who believe and teach that anyone who won't believe that Michael and Jesus are the same and that Jesus is pictured as the character of Revelation 6:2 are rebelling against God Almighty because he or she will not become "one mind in agreement" with them. 1 Corinthians 1:10In some traditions Jesus is Michael, but I don't think that's supported by the close side by side references to Jesus then Michael separately such as Jude and Revelation
if it was important that they were the same this would lead one to think otherwise
Thank you. Someone here is teaching for Jehovah's Witnesses and she says that to be a JW a person must be in agreement with the teachings of the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses. Now, you seem to be saying something different.The idea that Michael the archangel is another name for Jesus is not very well supported. In addition it is not a core Jw teaching. You won't be labelled a "demon" or "apostate" If you disagree with this conclusion.
I am staunchly opposed to the JW teaching that the men of the governing body are the faithful
So, a JW can indeed label me a demon.We are united worldwide in our core beliefs, the additional things can be tricky and cause many arguments and disagreements. Especially things that are not of real importance.
The governing body are indeed the "faithful and discreet slave" since they are those taking care of the "household" here on Earth at this point.
No. Romans helped in the building of God's people's spiritual places.It's true that roman rule prevented outright lawlessness, which protected Christians. But providing spiritual direction? I don't think Rome did that. Besides, Rome is just a place.