Originally posted by Rajk999Robbie is not claiming that the JW is true because he says so, or even that we should believe the JW claim because you haven't presented information to the contrary (except jaywill, who made his case above). Robbie is asking you to present your case! If the JW view is absurd, then it should be easy to refute with scripture, right? I mean, isn't that something like an rule of theological debate? So, make your case!
So it must be true then .. Jesus Christ is also Abaddon. If you say so ... 🙂
Originally posted by bbarrI would disagree that all 6 of us in this thread need to make a case. The ones already presented are more than sufficient.
Robbie is not claiming that the JW is true because he says so, or even that we should believe the JW claim because you haven't presented information to the contrary (except jaywill, who made his case above). Robbie is asking you to present your case! If the JW view is absurd, then it should be easy to refute with scripture, right? I mean, isn't that something like an rule of theological debate? So, make your case!
-Removed-Look, I think there are a lot of smart and sincere people here, and that we can learn from each other. But we're only going to do that by being generous in giving our own reasons and charitable in our interpretation of the reasons (and motivations) of others.
But, here's a question: Would you be inclined to give straight answers to questions, if you thought by doing so you'd be met with insult and mockery?
-Removed-I agree. That's what I said, in effect, to Galveston above when he asked why I thought Abaddon was a bad guy. I gave a general overview of my reasons. I think the burden of proof is now on him to explain why my interpretation is in error, or at least to give reasons for thinking that the issue is more complex than I made it out to be. But there is a difference between saying "you have the burden of proof here, I think..." and saying "Wikipedia says otherwise and you're a douchebag devil-worshipper for disagreeing". Bah, whatever. But don't you get tired of fighting with other folks who would probably help you out if you needed it, who you would probably get along with if you knew them, and who, at the end of the day, share most of your beliefs about God?
Originally posted by bbarr
Wow, OK. What scriptural references do you use to justify this interpretation? I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm really curious. Because here we have one entity, Abaddon, which the JW's seem to identify as Jesus himself, and you identify as the Antichrist.
Wow, OK. What scriptural references do you use to justify this interpretation? I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm really curious. Because here we have one entity, Abaddon, which the JW's seem to identify as Jesus himself, and you identify as the Antichrist.
It will take time for me to present the biblical support for Abaddon being the Antichrist. It will require some long and verbose examination of a number of passages.
Maybe I will do it tomorrow, a shortest possible exposition. You can prepare by reading Revelation 9, 12, 13, and 17.
I didn't know that the JW regard Abaddon and Apollyon as Jesus Christ.
Originally posted by jaywillI'll read all of Revelation tomorrow morning in preparation. I'm looking forward to your analysis!Wow, OK. What scriptural references do you use to justify this interpretation? I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm really curious. Because here we have one entity, Abaddon, which the JW's seem to identify as Jesus himself, and you identify as the Antichrist.
It will take time for me to present the biblical support for Abaddon being the ...[text shortened]... , 13, and 17.
I didn't know that the JW regard Abaddon and Apollyon as Jesus Christ.
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywillthen perhaps you should read the Gmans text again, he gives various reason, orWow, OK. What scriptural references do you use to justify this interpretation? I'm not trying to be difficult. I'm really curious. Because here we have one entity, Abaddon, which the JW's seem to identify as Jesus himself, and you identify as the Antichrist.
It will take time for me to present the biblical support for Abaddon being the ...[text shortened]... , 13, and 17.
I didn't know that the JW regard Abaddon and Apollyon as Jesus Christ.
scriptural references why. why must it be long and wordy? one or two scriptural
references and the reasons behind them are all that may be needed, the Gman
produced a single paragraph.
Originally posted by menace71no because the archangel is superior to all other angels.
I read and heard this also that "Angel" can and does mean messenger and servants.
That Michael means Prince of God or Captain of God.
The Book of Hebrews however argues the superiority of Christ over the angels so seems contradictory to Christ being Michael.
Manny
Originally posted by bbarrWhat a profound statement, and one with which I agree wholeheartedly!!
But don't you get tired of fighting with other folks who would probably help you out if you needed it, who you would probably get along with if you knew them, and who, at the end of the day, share most of your beliefs about God?
Another profound statement, on page 5 by Suzianne is the following:
Just because it's not in the Bible doesn't mean it's in some other source. I simply maintain that there are some things man is not supposed to know. And just because YOU don't rate them as "that important" doesn't mean they aren't. We will never know the mind of God, not in this life. To assume that you do, is quite arrogant.
Anybody that says he/she understands God totally is breaking the first and second commandments, because you have made an image of God in your likeness. Let's allow for some mystery - we DON'T know it all!
Having said that, wouldn't it be a wonderful world if we could debate because we want to understand the other person's point of view, not attack it or try to convert and convince!
Quite frankly, I never knew that JWs believed that Jesus was Michael, or, for that matter, the other two guys mentioned - but I find it quite interesting! I don't agree with this interpretation of scripture, but that does not relieve me of my own obligation to love and accept them.
I have discovered (big deal!!) that every opinion held has a merit for the person holding it, and is totally logical and convincing. Who am I (or anybody else) to argue that he/she is wrong?!
However, if the point of the debate (e.g. the very interesting interlude between RC and bbarr on the interpretation of greek terms) is to probe the other persons reasons in order to gain an understanding of their position, then it is really constructive.
So, let's see where this still goes......
In peace,
CJ
Originally posted by robbie carrobieShows us where it says this in scripture out right? It is vague at best while I can see the angle I'm not sure I buy it. You hold trinitarians to the standard of show us in the scriptures well this principle is the same for you or your not being honest.
no because the archangel is superior to all other angels.
Manny
3 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie
then perhaps you should read the Gmans text again, he gives various reason, or
scriptural references why. why must it be long and wordy? one or two scriptural
references and the reasons behind them are all that may be needed, the Gman
produced a single paragraph.