Send a Message
to Dave47

Comments

1,159

Joined

Jun 16, 2012

Dave47 Profile

Recent Posts

Jehovah's Witness

jesus is not michael

Hi Dee Your quote from Spurgeon's Sermon in 1856, in my opinion, does not support your claim that Spurgeon did not believe that Michael was Christ, as later Sermons noted below confirm my claim. See the following: From “The Blood of the Lamb, The Conquering Weapon” (Sept. 9, 1888):“By faith we rise into the conquering place this day. In the heavenlies we triumph, as also in every place. We rejoice in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Michael of the angels, the Redeemer of men. For by Him we see Satan cast out and all the powers of evil hurled from their places of power and eminence." ”From “Our Lord’s Transcendent Greatness” (Dec. 2, 1866):"You remember how our Lord, who is the true Michael, the only great Archangel, said at the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel, “I beheld Satan as lightning falling from Heaven." ”From “The Angelic Life” (Nov. 22, 1868):“We read that Michael and his angels fought against the dragon and his angels, and the dragon was cast down. The fight is going on every day. Michael is the Lord Jesus, the only Archangel.” All the Best Dave  (May 13, 2014 | post #998)

Jehovah's Witness

Who was / is Jesus according to scriptures ?

Hi Pat I note that you cite 1 Timothy 3:16 and what appears to be the KJV. Most Bibles do not use "God was manifested in the flesh" but instead use "he" or "who". The Net Bible at 1 Timothy 3:16 has a Note#24 which I have produced in part from this web site:http://net.bi ble.org/ #!bible/1 +Timothy+3“ "He was revealed in the flesh, vindicated by the Spirit, seen by angels, proclaimed among Gentiles, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.” "Note #24(in part)The evidence, therefore, for OC is quite compelling, both externally and internally. As TCGNT 574 notes, “no uncial (in the first hand) earlier than the eighth or ninth century (Ψ) supports THEOS; all ancient versions presuppose OC or O; and no patristic writer prior to the last third of the fourth century testifies to the reading THEOS.” Thus, the cries of certain groups that THEOS has to be original must be seen as special pleading in this case. To argue that heretics tampered with the text here is self-defeating, for most of the Western fathers who quoted the verse with the relative pronoun were quite orthodox, strongly affirming the deity of Christ. They would have dearly loved such a reading as THEOS. Further, had heretics introduced a variant to THEOS, a far more natural choice would have been CRISTOS (Cristos, “Christ”) or KURIOS (kurios, “Lord”), since the text is self-evidently about Christ, but it is not self-evidently a proclamation of his deity. (See ExSyn 341-42, for a summary discussion on this issue and additional bibliographic references.)”[Gree k Alphabet letter changes by me]." One of the points that stands outs is the absence of the use of this verse(1 Timothy 3:16) during the Arian Controversy. The prime issue during that time was the Deity of Christ. One would think that this verse would have been used "Strongly and Repeatedly" if it read "God was manifested in the flesh" but there is nothing? It is this absence of this verse(during the Arian controversy), and the evidence of so many early manuscripts(pre-7t h century) using "who, etc" instead of "God", that have tipped the scales in favour of "who, he, which, etc." by so many Scholars. If you disagree with the above --please explain why. All the Best Dave  (May 10, 2014 | post #66)

Jehovah's Witness

Trinitarian Contradictions

Hi Dee Some Comments: (1) Matt's post was to show that all Bibles frequently use the indefinite article "a" when translating from Greek to English. Greek has no indefinite article and English does-----the point being: that "a" is used many times by all Bibles -- then why not at John 1:1---why the exception? (2) In your transliteration you have "ton theon" and translate it as "the God". Why do Bible Translations drop the definite article "the" in clause (b) before God? (3) In clause (c) you have capitalized "God" when there is no upper or lower case size in Greek and no article like clause (b). Why? (4) There is no article before God in clause (c) and "god" is a common noun as it applies to all gods real, true or false etc. why is it rendered as a proper noun with a capital "G" instead of with a small "g" or add the indefinite article "a" like Matt's examples show are done elsewhere? (5) If the Word is God in clause (c) then who is "the God" in clause (b)? Why? All the Best Dave  (May 10, 2014 | post #799)

Jehovah's Witness

jesus is not michael

Hi Dee I do not agree with the assumptions you have made. For the folowing reasons. (1) The meaning for the word "Prince" in Hebrew is given at this web site. http://www.blbclas sic.org/lang/lexic on/lexicon.cfm?Str ongs=H8269&csc s=Isa "Strong's H8269 - sar ---Outline of Biblical Usage prince, ruler, leader, chief, chieftain, official, captain" (2) Michael was Chief prince for Israel. See: "Daniel 12:1(ASV) "And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince who standeth for the children of thy people;...." At this web site they note the Septuagint rendering of Daniel 12:1: http://biblehub.co m/daniel/12-1.htm "The rendering of the Septuagint is "And unto that place shall come Michael the archangel, who standeth over (ἐ&# 960;ὶ) the children of thy people; ....." (3) Israel was Gods chosen nation. See: "Exodus 4:22(ASV) "And thou shalt say unto Pharaoh, Thus saith Jehovah, Israel is my son, my first-born:" (4) David was appointed the firstborn king of Israel. See: "Psalm 89:27(ASV) "I also will make him my first-born, The highest of the kings of the earth." From the above one can see that Michael was the Chief Prince of the nation of Israel, and was described at Exodus 4:22 as ."Israel is my son, my first-born:" David was appointed the firstborn King of Israel by God, and was described at Psalms 89:27 as the "highest King of the Kings of the earth." The fact that there were other Chief Princes(rulers etc.)of other Nations paled in comparison to the "Chief Prince of God's Nation Israel"! The example of David being the King of Israel does not mean there are not other Kings of Nations, but as Psalms says--- David was the Highest of the Kings. Throughout the Bible we see terms such as God of gods, King of kings and Lord of lords. The meaning is clear there are many gods, kings, or lords but there is only ONE the others are not comparable. In the case of "Chief Prince" there are many, but only ONE the others are not comparable. This type of speech was common in ancient times, and is also true today when we want to make a strong statement ie: (a) when we have a "true love" it means it is special not that we don't love others.(b) when we call someone a "true friend" or "best friend" it does not mean we do don't have other friends, but that we have a special friend. (c) when one says the President of the USA is the head of the ONE Superpower Nation does not mean that there are not Presidents of other Nations, but that the President of the USA is both militarily and economically more powerful than other Nations. So calling Michael one of many Chief Princes means nothing more than that there are many rulers, kings etc, but that as scripture shows ---- the Chief Prince of Israel is special as "Israel is God's Chosen Nation." Just as David was higest of the Kings of the earth ----Michael was highest of the Chief Princes. All the Best Dave  (May 2, 2014 | post #854)

Jehovah's Witness

jesus is not michael

Hi Boni I had expected Mega Rude to push back on the issue Galatians 4:14, but there was nothing of substance! Bart Ehrlman in his Book "How Jesus became God" cited Susan Garrett when he said Galatians 4:14 indicated Jesus was an angel. The following is a quote from her book "No Ordinary Angel: Celestial Spirits and Christian Claims about Jesus (The Anchor Yale Bible Reference Library) " by Dr. Susan R. Garrett(Dean of Louisville Seminary) a Scholar (whose specializes in the New Testament) said at Page 11. "But there is good reason to suspect that Paul is claiming that the Galatians received him as "God's Angel--namely, Jesus Christ" in other words, Paul is making the startling claim that when he preached the gospel to the Galatians, he was united wth Jesus Christ(see Gal. 2:30), whom Paul identified with God's Chief Angel. In other passages too, Paul's language suggests that he made sense of Jesus's work by likening him to angels, or even identifying him with the Chief Angel of God. Other New Testament authors did the same, including the authors of Luke and Acts, John, Hebrews, Jude and Revelation." The above quote certainly begs some comment from Trinitarians who do not believe Jesus was an angel prior to becoming flesh. All the Best Dave  (May 1, 2014 | post #821)

Jehovah's Witness

jesus is not michael

Hi Claude Your post asks a couple of fair questions. I will address them one at a time in separate posts as I get time. Your post said: "If Jesus is first a son as an archangel, then he was already greater than the angels." I disagree. A person can be the Chief of a group, but still be considered equals in some sense. This is the well known concept of "first among equals". The Wikipedia describes it this way: http://en.m.wikipe dia.org/wiki/First _among_equals Primus inter pares (Greek:  Π&#96 1;ῶ& #964;ο ς μ&#94 9;τ&# 945;ξ ὺ ἴ&#9 63;ω& #957; (protos metaxy ison), English: the first among equals or first among peers) is a Latin phrase describing the most senior person of a group sharing the same rank or office.[1]When not used in reference to a specific title, it may indicate that the person so described is formally equal, but looked upon as an authority of special importance by their peers. However, in some cases it may also be used to indicate that while the person described appears to be an equal, that person actually is the group's unofficial or hidden leader, and thus the reference to this person being "equal" to the rest is intended to project mutual respect and camaraderie." Examples are many. (1) A good example is the Supreme Courts of many countries where there are several judges overseen by a Chief Justice all of whom have only one vote including the Chief Justice. (2) In a Parliamentary sytem of governance the Prime Minister is considered "first amongst equals" but has only one vote like all other members of parliament. However, the Prime Minister is considered the leader and represents his country internationally, sets the legislative agenda and makes apointments etc. In the Bible, Michael is only directly referred to as an Archangel in Jude 1:9. Archangel is simply the Chief Angel. Because Michael is the Chief Angel does not mean he has the ultimate power over other angels such as judging them and passing sentence --- only the God the Father had that power. Jesus, after he had died and was resurrected, was then GIVEN all power in heaven and earth, as the resurrected Jesus told his disciples in Matthew 28:18. Michael had also been appointed the prince over the nation of Israel -- Gods chosen nation. This appointment is significant as God had designated the nation of Israel in Exodus 4:22 as his firstborn. All the Best Dave  (Apr 29, 2014 | post #756)

Jehovah's Witness

jesus is not michael

Hi Pat Just a short post for now----for you to look over re:- Hebrew 1:4. The question I have is: Trinitarians say God the Son never stopped been God. So how can he be exalted? I would also point out that Mathew 28:18 where Jesus said he had been GIVEN all power in heaven and earth---he must not have had it before. When Jesus spoke those words he had already been ressurected. I would argue that Jesus did not have the power to judge the angels before he paid the ransom----only the Father had that power. Jude 1:9 alludes to that when Michael the Archangel implies he did not have the power to judge Satan. Who are the "companions " in Hebrews 1:9? Many Scholars say they are the angels---what say you? All the Best Dave  (Apr 27, 2014 | post #645)

Jehovah's Witness

jesus is not michael

Hi Claude Thanks for the comment. Your post in part says: "Surely he knew the difference between Christ and AN angel of God. See Acts 27:23-26There are numerous examples of an angel of the Lord (Jehovah's angel in the NWT) appearing in the New Testament, that in no way refer to Christ. See Mt. 2:13 & 19; Mt. 28:2; Luke 2:9; Acts 5:19; Acts 8:26; Acts 12:7, 23" The verses you quote in the New Testament all have "AN angel of the Lord" in the vast majority of Bible Translations except the KJV and a couple of other Bibles where " the" is used. I note you capitalized the word "AN" in your post. You are aware, of course, there are no indefinite articles in Koine Greek ---so why have you emphasized the "AN", as you must have known it was added? Could the reason be theological? Many posters question the NWT use of the indefinite article "a" in John 1:1(c). If you are going to argue that "AN" is grammatically possible in the "AN angel of the Lord" verses, then, is it not also grammatically possible in John1:1(c) as Scholars now concede, but apparently not the posters on this Forum! In my post I had pointed out Paul's words at Galatians 4:14 as meaning that Paul identified Jesus as an Angel. I pointed out Bart Ehrlman's argument in his book "How God became Jesus" at pages 252-53. What is your view on this verse. All the Best Dave  (Apr 27, 2014 | post #643)

Jehovah's Witness

jesus is not michael

Hi MegaRude I am not surprised that you ignored the context in which I said I would discuss the NWT vs other Bibles. See Post##577: "Your post states:  "If you would like to talk about a bible that is TRASH, let us discuss the NWT."I have no problem discussing the NWT and other Bibles, but only in relation to the subject of this thread--"Jesu s is not Michael". If you want to discuss it in full I suggest you post in the thread "The Most Accurate & Honest of all Bible Translations- the NWT" We have already started a comparison with Galatians 4:14. You cited TLB and I cited the NASB and NRSV Bibles." Please NOTE the caveat about the subject of this thread "Jesus is not Michael" and my statement "only in relation to the subject of the thread". In your post you cited only part of my post#577 and conveniently left out the context of the verse under discussion ie:- Galatians 4:14 ---where I discussed the NWT vs the Bible you quoted the TLB, and had concluded after showing evidence that the NWT was more accurate than the TLB . You have provided no rebuttal---Is it because you have none?? Galatians 14:4 directly addresses the issue of whether Jesus was an angel or not. I cited Author and Theologian Bart Erhmans book "How Jesus became God" at pages 252-53 as evidence. I also cited the adding of the word "or" in the TLB which is not used in either the NWT or the vast majority of other Bibles. The Greek word "oude" for "or" was missing, and that was why most Bibles do not have it. If you want to discuss the NWT then go to the thread "The Most Accurate & Honest of all Bible Translations- the NWT". This is a "Jesus is not Michael" thread. I suggest that shotgun CNP usualy do not get a response from me and, if I do, it generally is limited to a verse or two. All the Best Dave  (Apr 27, 2014 | post #624)

Jehovah's Witness

JW'S are 100% right about the trinity?

Hi MegaRude I see you have got "NEW LIGHT" and now accept "Jehovah " as been a true translation of YHWH. In your post you said: "This is not the Trinity; it is not taught that there are "three Gods in one". Trinitarians embrace the statement at Deuteronomy 6:4 that "Jehovah our God is one Jehovah." There is one true God by nature, existing as Father, Son and Holy Spirit." So we can expect that we will no longer see you referencing the name "Jehovah " as a fake, fabricated name! There's hope for you yet! Can we expect a new name next such as "MiniRude " LOL. All the Best Dave  (Apr 27, 2014 | post #166)

Jehovah's Witness

jesus is not michael

Hi MegaRude Please give a source for your postion that Voltaire was an Atheist. My research says that Voltaire was a Deist. See: http://danassays.w ordpress.com/encyc lopedia-of-the-ess ay/voltaire/voltai re-francois-marie- arouet/ "Like many other key figures during the European Enlightenment, Voltaire considered himself a deist. He did not believe that absolute faith, based upon any particular or singular religious text or tradition of revelation, was needed to believe in God. In fact, Voltaire’s focus was instead on the idea of a universe based on reason and a respect for nature reflected the contemporary pantheism, increasingly popular throughout the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries and which continues in a form of deism today known as “Voltairean Pantheism.”He wrote, “What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason.” Voltaire was a believer in God --he did not agree with how religion operated. All the Best Dave  (Apr 26, 2014 | post #586)

Jehovah's Witness

jesus is not michael

Hi Mega Rude My research differs from yours. Could you give a source? In regards to a deathbed repentance Wikipedia has the following comment: http://en.m.wikipe dia.org/wiki/Volta ire "He soon became ill again and died on 30 May 1778. The accounts of his deathbed have been numerous and varying, and it has not been possible to establish the details of what precisely occurred. His enemies related that he repented and accepted the last rites given by a Catholic priest, or that he died under great torment, while his adherents told how he was defiant to his last breath.[25] Accord ing to one story, his last words were, "Now is not the time for making new enemies." It was his response to a priest at the side of his deathbed, asking Voltaire to renounce Satan.[26]Because of his well-known criticism of the Church, which he had refused to retract before his death, Voltaire was denied a Christian burial, but friends managed to bury his body secretly at the Abbey of Scellières in Champagne befor e this prohibition had been announced. His heart and brain were embalmed separately." One of the strongest evidence for there being no deathbed repentance is that the Church had denied such a burial and it was done secretly by friends. All the Best Dave  (Apr 26, 2014 | post #585)

Jehovah's Witness

jesus is not michael

Hi Mega Rude Your post states: "If you would like to talk about a bible that is TRASH, let us discuss the NWT." I have no problem discussing the NWT and other Bibles, but only in relation to the subject of this thread--"Jesu s is not Michael". If you want to discuss it in full I suggest you post in the thread "The Most Accurate & Honest of all Bible Translations- the NWT" We have already started a comparison with Galatians 4:14. You cited TLB and I cited the NASB and NRSV Bibles. The NWT for Galatians 4:14(NWT) says: "And though my physical condition was a trial for you, you did not treat me with contempt or disgust;but you received me like an angel of God, like Christ Jesus." The Living Bible(TLB) at Galatians 14:4 says: "But even though my sickness was revolting to you, you didn’t reject me and turn me away. No, you took me in and cared for me as though I were an angel from God or even Jesus Christ himself." I have compared the NWT with the TLB and I consider the NWT more accurate and similar to many other Bibles. I found that the TLB was a paraphrase which, as the Web site I quoted earlier said is fraught with difficulties for it is a commentary and not a Translation. For example the TLB says: "God or even Jesus Christ himself.". When I checked Interlinear's for the word "or" and its Koine Greek "oude" it was not there! The word "or" was added to this verse in the TLB. I also noted that "or" was used earlier in this verse ---see Gal 14:4(NWT) "..contempt or disgust;..). I checked Bible Gateway and the transliteration at the Mounce Version and found "oude" rendered as "or" where the NWT used it and not there where the TLB used it! As I noted in my previous post, Bart Ehrlman(a well-known author and Theologian) has said in his recently released book(How Jesus became God) that Paul in Galatians 4:14 was indicating Jesus was an angel. What is your response to Ehrlmans argument ? See Ehrlman's book at pages 252-253 where he said: "In fact, however, the grammar of the Greek suggests something quite different. As Charles Gieschen has argued, and has now been affirmed in a book on Christ as an angel by New Testament specialist Susan Garrett, the verse is not saying that the Galatians received Paul as an angel or as Christ; it is saying that they received him as they would an angel, such as Chr ist. By clear implication, then, Christ is an angel…" All the Best Dave  (Apr 26, 2014 | post #577)

Jehovah's Witness

jesus is not michael

Hi Mega Rude (1) Your post stated: "Good job of ignoring me Dave. LIES COME SO EASY FOR YOU" THIS ALLEGATION IS NOT TRUE!!! In the Thread: "One of Calvin's Commentary I greatly enjoy reading" at post #33 I pointed out at points #1 and #5: "(1) When I asked for evidence of when I said I wouldn't respond to the posts of "Mega Rude" you respond by saying: "No accusation, it's a fact." That answer suggests that you have NO POSTS!!! Because if you had, you would have posted them--- not just ask everyone to accept your word.  (5) I won't ignore you ---when I consider it appropriate I will respond to your naked assertions." Facts and Evidence!! You seem to have a problem with them?? (2) Your post states: "Tell me Dave, if you know so much about the bible, why can't you even spell "GALATIANS "?After you learn to spell Galatians, work on "PARAPHRASED " Is that the best you can do? Are you the self appointed SPELL CHECKER? I suggest, that you try rebutting my arguments by using Evidence, Facts, Logic and Reasonable arguments. Insults, ridicule, nit-picking and rudeness are not arguments, and are the last resort of those who cannot argue from reason. Thomas Jefferson is quoted as saying:. "Resort is had to ridicule only when reason is against us." Galileo on how he and Copernicus were treated: " I esteem myself happy to have as great an ally as you in my search for truth. I will read your work ... all the more willingly because I have for many years been a partisan of the Copernican vie w because it reveals to me the causes of many natural phenomena that are entirely incomprehensible in the light of the generally accepted hypothesis. To refute the latter I have collected many proofs, but I do not publish them, because I am deterred by the fate of our teacher Copernicus who, although he had won immortal fame with a few, was ridiculed and condemned by countless people (for very great is the number of the stupid).”&#821 3; Galileo Galilei, Frammenti e lettere" Voltaire captures how I feel: "I have never made but one prayer to God, a very short one: Oh Lord, make my enemies ridiculous. And God granted it."(Letter to Étienne Noël Damilaville, May 16, 1767)”  All the Best Dave  (Apr 26, 2014 | post #575)