JW

JW Where at my parents house the other day because I saw two of their books in the computer room. They were both January 2014 issues. One was title JW.org So I looked through it and wanted to read it because some Asian lady gave a testimony. It wasn't really that good because she didn't really explain Jesus or God that good of her testimony of becoming a Jehovah witness. It should've been 4 or 5 pages long but it was only 2.

Also off the subject of this thrend I'm starting, I read somewhere their trick is Jehovah witnesses later on down the road when you're studying about Jehovah witnesses They finally teach you that Jesus is Michael the arc angel!!!

Originally posted by RBHILL
JW Where at my parents house the other day because I saw two of their books in the computer room. They were both January 2014 issues. One was title JW.org So I looked through it and wanted to read it because some Asian lady gave a testimony. It wasn't really that good because she didn't really explain Jesus or God that good of her testimony of becoming a Jeho ...[text shortened]... e studying about Jehovah witnesses They finally teach you that Jesus is Michael the arc angel!!!

NM.

Originally posted by divegeester
NM.

No not in New Mexico but in CA. 😉

Originally posted by RBHILL
JW Where at my parents house the other day because I saw two of their books in the computer room. They were both January 2014 issues. One was title JW.org So I looked through it and wanted to read it because some Asian lady gave a testimony. It wasn't really that good because she didn't really explain Jesus or God that good of her testimony of becoming a Jeho ...[text shortened]... e studying about Jehovah witnesses They finally teach you that Jesus is Michael the arc angel!!!

The rest of the forum has been there and done that already.

The main thread is now on page 5 as I write this.

Nice to see you catching up, though.

Originally posted by RBHILL
JW Where at my parents house the other day because I saw two of their books in the computer room. They were both January 2014 issues. One was title JW.org So I looked through it and wanted to read it because some Asian lady gave a testimony. It wasn't really that good because she didn't really explain Jesus or God that good of her testimony of becoming a Jeho ...[text shortened]... e studying about Jehovah witnesses They finally teach you that Jesus is Michael the arc angel!!!

Finally? Never heard that one. I've studied with many and have sat in with many other bible studies with interested ones and have never heard or seen this trick.
In fact in a couple of the very first studies with interesed ones this subject has come up a couple times and it was shown from their bible the explination of this.
So are you saying we have this issue about Jesus saved back to trick someone later? Really?

Originally posted by galveston75
Finally? Never heard that one. I've studied with many and have sat in with many other bible studies with interested ones and have never heard or seen this trick.
In fact in a couple of the very first studies with interesed ones this subject has come up a couple times and it was shown from their bible the explination of this.
So are you saying we have this issue about Jesus saved back to trick someone later? Really?

I believe he is saying you don't come out with your core beliefs until you feel a nibble on the hook.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I believe he is saying you don't come out with your core beliefs until you feel a nibble on the hook.

Cee.

Originally posted by galveston75
Finally? Never heard that one. I've studied with many and have sat in with many other bible studies with interested ones and have never heard or seen this trick.
In fact in a couple of the very first studies with interesed ones this subject has come up a couple times and it was shown from their bible the explination of this.
So are you saying we have this issue about Jesus saved back to trick someone later? Really?

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but here is what I found at the following site that purports to be JW:

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel/

quote:

Who Is Michael the Archangel?

THE spirit creature called Michael is not mentioned often in the Bible. However, when he is referred to, he is in action. In the book of Daniel, Michael is battling wicked angels; in the letter of Jude, he is disputing with Satan; and in Revelation, he is waging war with the Devil and his demons. By defending Jehovah’s rulership and fighting God’s enemies, Michael lives up to the meaning of his name—“Who Is Like God?” But who is Michael?

At times, individuals are known by more than one name. For example, the patriarch Jacob is also known as Israel, and the apostle Peter, as Simon. (Genesis 49:1, 2; Matthew 10:2) Likewise, the Bible indicates that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ, before and after his life on earth. Let us consider Scriptural reasons for drawing that conclusion.

Archangel. God’s Word refers to Michael “the archangel.” (Jude 9) This term means “chief angel.” Notice that Michael is called the archangel. This suggests that there is only one such angel. In fact, the term “archangel” occurs in the Bible only in the singular, never in the plural. Moreover, Jesus is linked with the office of archangel. Regarding the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ, 1 Thessalonians 4:16 states: “The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice.” Thus the voice of Jesus is described as being that of an archangel. This scripture therefore suggests that Jesus himself is the archangel Michael.

Army Leader. The Bible states that “Michael and his angels battled with the dragon…and its angels.” (Revelation 12:7) Thus, Michael is the Leader of an army of faithful angels. Revelation also describes Jesus as the Leader of an army of faithful angels. (Revelation 19:14-16) And the apostle Paul specifically mentions “the Lord Jesus” and “his powerful angels.” (2 Thessalonians 1:7; Matthew 16:27; 24:31; 1 Peter 3:22) So the Bible speaks of both Michael and “his angels” and Jesus and “his angels.” (Matthew 13:41) Since God’s Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven—one headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus—it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role. [my emphasis]*

* More information showing that the name Michael applies to God’s Son is found in Volume 2, pages 393-4, of Insight on the Scriptures, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

unquote

Originally posted by JS357
I don't have a dog in this hunt, but here is what I found at the following site that purports to be JW:

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel/

quote:

Who Is Michael the Archangel?

THE spirit creature called Michael is not mentioned often in the Bible. However, when he is referred to, he is in action. In th ...[text shortened]... lume 2, pages 393-4, of Insight on the Scriptures, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

unquote

yes its entirely logical but one must remember its difficult to reason with people who are uninterested in reason or logic.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes its entirely logical but one must remember its difficult to reason with people who are uninterested in reason or logic.

I meant to ask: just because something is deemed to be logical by an accepted authority, and the logic rings true, does that make it important to believe, or can one just say it's an interesting idea and go about one's business?

I won't get bogged down in whether it is true.

Originally posted by JS357
I don't have a dog in this hunt, but here is what I found at the following site that purports to be JW:

http://www.jw.org/en/publications/books/bible-teach/who-is-michael-the-archangel/

quote:

Who Is Michael the Archangel?

THE spirit creature called Michael is not mentioned often in the Bible. However, when he is referred to, he is in action. In th ...[text shortened]... lume 2, pages 393-4, of Insight on the Scriptures, published by Jehovah’s Witnesses.

unquote

SOP for the JWs. Twisting the meaning of scripture to fit their man-made, non-biblical dogma. Their dogma was created first and then they twist the meaning of the Bible to fit their dogma. This is the exact opposite of what other denominations do. And when they couldn't twist the Bible any more because of other Christians calling them on it, they just went out and made their own Bible, which miraculously supports their already-made dogma.

Keep this in mind. Other denominations: Bible, then dogma. JWs: Dogma, then Bible. Dogma must be derived from the Bible. You cannot create a Bible derived from your dogma.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
yes its entirely logical but one must remember its difficult to reason with people who are uninterested in reason or logic.

If you think this is logical, you are extremely deficient of logic.

Who else (besides JWs ) takes pleasure in twisting the meaning of scripture? Yes, the Father of Lies.

Originally posted by JS357
I meant to ask: just because something is deemed to be logical by an accepted authority, and the logic rings true, does that make it important to believe, or can one just say it's an interesting idea and go about one's business?

I won't get bogged down in whether it [b]is true.[/b]

it lends credence to the validity of the idea because logic is a kind of authority in itself which we can appeal to, for others are able to follow the path and grasp the ideas for themselves and if it is truly logical it may prove to be unassailable and considered sound on that basis. Irrationality and its vulgar sister unreasonableness are frowned upon and rightly so for they have little basis with which to recommend themselves and logic trumps them almost every time to such an extent that an argument can be disregarded simply on the basis that its irrational and unreasonable.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it lends credence to the validity of the idea because logic is a kind of authority in itself which we can appeal to, for others are able to follow the path and grasp the ideas for themselves and if it is truly logical it may prove to be unassailable and considered sound on that basis. Irrationality and its vulgar sister unreasonableness are frowned u ...[text shortened]... nt that an argument can be disregarded simply on the basis that its irrational and unreasonable.

Yes "Irrationality and its vulgar sister unreasonableness" seem to visit this forum quite often it seems. 🙂

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
it lends credence to the validity of the idea because logic is a kind of authority in itself which we can appeal to, for others are able to follow the path and grasp the ideas for themselves and if it is truly logical it may prove to be unassailable and considered sound on that basis. Irrationality and its vulgar sister unreasonableness are frowned u ...[text shortened]... nt that an argument can be disregarded simply on the basis that its irrational and unreasonable.

I wonder when the idea of Jesus/Michael first surfaced? One site says, "The teaching that Jesus is Michael the Archangel is an old, tired Arian argument."

http://www.exadventist.com/Home/Articles/JesusisNotMichael/tabid/482/Default.aspx

But I find no such reference to original Arianism that assert this to be among their beliefs, in various "issue neutral" online encyclopedias. Internet searches show that "Jesus as Michael" is attributed to Arianism by those Christians who reject the idea.

So I wonder when it first gained some prominence as an idea.

I suspect that there are bigger fish to fry on this thread, than mine.