Jehovah's witnesses- a question about Jesus/Michael?

Jehovah's witnesses- a question about Jesus/Michael? Topic: Jehovah's witnesses- a question about Jesus/Michael?
July 19, 2019 / By Kiki
Question: I was looking into the definition of the word 'archangel' in the "strong's Bible Dictionary," as a result of another question I saw, and I came across Jude 1:9, which says "Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee." The word Archangel (strong's 743) can also be translated as "chief of the angels" The Lord (strong's 2962) can be translated as master. It goes on to list 3 ways in which the term is used. "a) the possessor and disposer of a thing b) is a title of honour expressive of respect and reverence, with which servants greet their master c) this title is given to: God, the Messiah" Now, i realize that saying it is a title given to 'God, the Messiah' may be 'translation' based on theology rather than the other way around, so I kept looking, to the other verses that use the same root word. Most of these are unquestionably about Jesus. The rest could (by my perspective) be about the Father or Jesus, depending on your theology. So my question, then, is why do the Jehovah's witnesses believe one version of this rather than the other, when the Bible isn't quite clear on it. If most of the time the word is used in one way, to refer to Jesus, then how do we know that Michael isn't referring to Jesus, when he says "the Lord rebuke you?" In other words, what proof do we have that Jesus is the Archangel Michael? @Leo- You mention Daniel 12:1, which seems to me to be saying that Michael will stand up at a time where a king from the north is trying to take over other lands. It then says "...then there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation..." or, in other words, the coming of Michael will cause problem. it then says that "at that time your people shall be delivered." In other words, this seems to be saying to me that Michael will come and start the process, but ultimately his endeavors will cause more trouble than it solves. Then an event (which I take to means Christ's second coming) will happen, and the people (everyone who's name is written in the book) will be saved. 1 Thessalonians only supports this, since it says that the Son of God will come, and we will meet Him in the air. No mention of 'standing up' or 'great trouble,' implying that this event occurs AFTER Michael's part. @ whirlingmerc I think your best argument is "Jesus did rebuke the devil. Michael did not." Could a JW address this? @Isaiah 25:8 and Leo Jesus is describes both as a lion and as a lamb. Since these are animals, and He is the son of God, isn't this using terms that are less than the truth? Isn't it an insult to do so? I would say no, and thus also say that it is not an insult to describe an attribute of Christ in terms that are more understandable to man (by saying he has the call as that of the Archangel.) Also, if Christ IS the archangel, why does it make sense to say he has the archangels call? wouldn't that be like describing a cats whiskers by saying it has whiskers like a cat? Or a gladiators legs by saying he has legs like a gladiator? @Albernathy- you completely misunderstood my message. Strongs is saying that the word "Lord" refers to Jesus. not "archangel." The questions is why do JWs believe that Jesus is Michael. @Sunshine Thanks for the answer. Again, it doesn't quite answer why, if Jesus IS the archangel, he is described as having an archangels call. In ancient warfare, when the king lead the troops, was he ever described as the chief warrior (or general)? The general is under the king, and acts in his stead when he is absent. likewise, the archangel acts in the kings stead in His absence.
Best Answer

Best Answers: Jehovah's witnesses- a question about Jesus/Michael?

Jan Jan | 4 days ago
Michael is Jesus Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God’s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return. Michael is the only one said to be “the archangel,” meaning “chief angel,” or “principal angel.” The term occurs in the Bible only in the singular. This seems to imply that there is but one whom God has designated chief, or head, of the angelic host. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice of the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ is described as being that of an archangel, suggesting that he is, in fact, himself the archangel. This text depicts him as descending from heaven with “a commanding call.” It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Mt 28:18; Re 17:14) If the designation “archangel” applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to “an archangel’s voice” would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God. There are also other correspondencies establishing that Michael is actually the Son of God. Daniel, after making the first reference to Michael (Da 10:13), recorded a prophecy reaching down to “the time of the end” (Da 11:40) and then stated: “And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel’s] people.” (Da 12:1) Michael’s ‘standing up’ was to be associated with “a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time.” (Da 12:1) In Daniel’s prophecy, ‘standing up’ frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as king. (Da 11:2-4, 7, 16b, 20, 21) This supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah’s appointed King, commissioned to destroy all the nations at Har–Magedon.—Re 11:15; 16:14-16. The book of Revelation (12:7, 10, 12) specifically mentions Michael in connection with the establishment of God’s Kingdom and links this event with trouble for the earth: “And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled. Jesus Christ is later depicted as leading the heavenly armies in war against the nations of the earth. (Re 19:11-16) This would mean a period of distress for them, which would logically be included in the “time of distress” that is associated with Michael’s standing up. (Da 12:1) Since the Son of God is to fight the nations, it is only reasonable that he was the one who with his angels earlier battled against the superhuman dragon, Satan the Devil, and his angels. Strong's definition "c)"this title is given to: God, the Messiah" is incorrect. God is not Jesus. That is a whole other discussion. See best answer here - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
👍 276 | 👎 4
Did you like the answer? Jehovah's witnesses- a question about Jesus/Michael? Share with your friends
Jan Originally Answered: Jehovah's Witnesses, do you suppose Jesus came back only in spirit on May 21?
An absolutely critical date for the Jehovah's Witnesses is 1914 AD. It is the date when, according to the Jehovah's Witnesses, the time of the Gentiles ended (Watchtower, 5/1/93, page 11) and "Jesus-the heavenly warrior Michael-became King of God's heavenly Kingdom," (Watchtower 11/1/93, page 23). To arrive at this date, the Witnesses take the account in Daniel 4 and apply a 360 day year for each of the seven "times" for a total of 2520 years. They add this date to 607 B.C., their date for the fall of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezzar, and arrive at 1914 A.D., the date when Jesus supposedly returned invisibly in the heavens (The Truth Shall Make You Free, p. 300), the "appointed time of the nations" ended (The Time is at Hand, page 79), and the beginning of the end of the world commenced (Watchtower 11/15/50, page 438). Please consider the following quote. "This marked time began in the year 1914 (A.D.). In that important year the 'appointed times of the nations,' 2,520 years long, ran out. If we measure back that many years from 1914 we come to the ancient date of 607 B.C. That year was marked for the overthrow of the earthly "throne of Jehovah" and for the destruction of the throne city of Jerusalem and its sanctuary and for the total desolation of the land of the kingdom of Judah." (From the Book, "Your Will," 1958, pp. 309-310, Watchtower CD, emphasis added). Therefore, the date 607 BC becomes the critical date in question. Was 607 BC the date when Jerusalem fell? No, it wasn't. No Bible scholar and no archaeological scholar holds to that date. The correct date is 586 B.C., not 607 B.C. Therefore, the Jehovah's Witnesses are wrong about 1914 and everything else they attach to that date based on their prophet misunderstanding. Let's verify further that 607 B.C. is the date used by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society before we establish the counter evidence. •"The true prophet Jeremiah, not the false prophets, was vindicated when Jerusalem was razed by Babylonian soldiers in 607 B.C.E., the temple destroyed, and the populace either killed or dragged away captive to distant Babylon. The pitiful few that were left in the land fled into Egypt.-Jeremiah 39:6-9; 43:4-7," (Watchtower 2/1/92, page 4). •"In 607 B.C.E., Israel was taken into captivity for 70 years," (Watchtower 4/15/92, page 10). •"Samaria fell to the Assyrians in 740 B.C.E., and Jerusalem and its temple were destroyed by the Babylonians in 607 B.C.E," (Watchtower, 11/1/92, page 13). •"The Babylonians came in 607 B.C.E. and stripped Jerusalem bare. Her people and her wealth were carried off to Babylon. The city was destroyed, the temple was burned, and the land was left desolate.-2 Chronicles 36:17-21," (Watchtower 10/15/88, page 16). Following are citations verifying that the correct date for the fall of Jerusalem was not 607 B.C, but 586 B.C. •According to Encyclopedia.com, the Babylonian captivity, is defined as "the period from the fall of Jerusalem (586 B.C.) to the reconstruction in Palestine of a new Jewish state (after 538 B.C.)." •"You will recall that the Babylonians, under Nebuchadnezzar, after twice laying siege to Jerusalem, finally captured it in 586 B.C.E. Nebuchadnezzar's army then pillaged the city, destroying the Temple and sending the inhabitants off to exile in Babylonia. ("Biblical Archaeological Review, Biblical Archaelogical Review). •"...Nebuchadnezzar promptly invaded his unhappy country and besieged Jerusalem for a year and a half. In 587 Jerusalem fell and numbers of its inhabitants were carried away captive to Babylonia..." (Unger, Merrill, F., Unger's Bible Dictionary, Moody Press, Chicago, 1966, page 782). ◦Notice that the year 587 is offered instead of 586. There is sometimes a difference of opinion as to which year is the exact one. Nevertheless, it is obvious that 607 B.C. is not even close. •"586, Jerusalem destroyed and burned (Jer. 52:13b.); people taken captive (52:28-30). (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1982, page 1016) It is quite clear that the Jehovah's Witness organization is wrong about the 607 B.C. date upon which they place so much of their end times theology.

Epona Epona
The word ARCHANGEL is only mentioned in the bible twice (Jude 9 & 1 Thess 4: 15 - It it nowhere else in scripture). MICHEAL (the archangel) is mentioned in Daniel and Revelation. Since neither of these scriptures say explicitly that Michel is Jesus, why do we identify him as such? Jude 9 identifies the "archangel" as Michel; we can reasonably assume that michel the archangel is Jesus because * an archangel is the head or chief or commander of the angels. There is noone else that can have that position. While revelation refers to Michael and "his" angels Matthew 25 (speaking of Jesus) says "When the Son of man arrives in his glory, and all the angels with him..." Jesus is again identified as leading the angels in Revelation 19: 11. So in short in Revelation Michael is the head of the angels, and in Matthew Jesus is the head of the angels. Either the angels have two bosses (in which case who would be the 'chief's) or they are both just different names for the same person. Jesus being given the name (or position) above everyone else must also be king of the angels. And 1 Thessalonians 4: 15 speaks of Jesus with "an archangel's call". So if Jesus is head, of chief of the angels, and speaks with an "archangel's voice" then Jesus and Michel must be one and the same. Other scholars that come to similar beliefs (scroll down) http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;... Further reading http://tearsofoberon.blogspot.com/2009/0... http://www.jehovah.to/exe/general/archan... http://mx.answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AvHDLqkO38qKIKXrhTn6YnKZ8gt.;_ylv=3?qid=20080722185836AAPfqQQ&show=7#profile-info-LgFWfHqbaa http://www.jehovah.to/exe/general/angel.htm http://www.witnessoftruth.com/articles/carm/reply-to-questions-for-jehovahs-witnesses.html http://web.archive.org/web/20030423084428/www.jehovah.to/exegesis/general/angel.htm
👍 120 | 👎 -3

Cis Cis
"Lord" is used many times, not only referring to God and Jesus, but also to humans with high status, no? Anyway, we know that Jesus is Michael. There are a few very good reasons. 1) Jude 9 refers to Michael "THE archangel." Meaning there is only one. Since Michael is THE archangel and Jesus is referred to as having "an archangel"'s call, that is one way we connect the two. (1 Thessalonians 4:16) 2) Revelation 12:7 speaks about Michael's angels. Revelation 19:14-16 also speaks of Jesus having angels. If this would mean that there are two separate groups of angels, then one must be unfaithful and one faithful. However, both legions are the faithful angels, thus Michael's angels are Jesus' angels. Besides this, there are prophecies in Daniel that make clear that Michael will "stand up" during a "great tribulation." For him to "stand up," he would take the throne of King. We know that Jesus is the King of God's kingdom and also "stands up" during "the great tribulation" for his people. Also, Michael throughout the Bible is known to be the guardian and guide of the Israelites, God's chosen people. So it is with Jesus.
👍 117 | 👎 -10

Bailee Bailee
My challenge is that JWs declare in writing which can also be confirmed, that Jehovah/Yahweh has positioned His phrases of their mouths; communicates by way of angels and the ones communications come to be in print at the pages of WT literature. The challenge is the WT hasn't gotten any of it is finish of the sector predictions correct seeing that it! establishing within the 1800's. In the September 15, 2013 WT, the "fact" has been modified once more. This time a important difference. The "fact" the sunshine lamentably has long past out for JW's. Therefore, I doubt very severely that the remark made was once by means of a identified Greek student.
👍 114 | 👎 -17

Ada Ada
The real reason.... envelop please... most JW do not know this.... AHEM... opens crinkle crinkle...the founder of the JW.. Russel was a bible study leader for a split off from a split off of a seventh day Adventist church and took the seventh day Adventist ideas about Jesus and Michal and also soul sleep with him. He was not honest with where the ideas came from and most JW would not know this. Biblically I have more problems with the Jesus is Michael thing on the same page you mentioned we see the following: Jude mentions both Michael and Jesus never drawing a connection, same page. Revelation mention both Michael and Jesus never drawing a connection, same page. Jesus did rebuke the devil. Michael did not. In Daniel Michael was 'one of the chief Princes" Jesus is way more than a 'one of' It is true that Jesus descends with the voice of the archangel and the trumpet of God HOWEVER Jesus aint no trumpet and the holy angels are coming with Him and why assume they will be silent. The case IS NOT MADE that Jesus is Michael. Jesus comes with trumpet blowing noisy angels in Thessalonians. In the end Michael being Jesus is an eccentricity of the 7th day Adventists as was soul sleep and Charles Russel took that baggage with him and handed it unchallenged to the JW group he formed. They herald this as a revelation from God when it was a borrowed eccentricity.
👍 111 | 👎 -24

Ada Originally Answered: Why don't Jehovah's Witnesses trumpet their revelation about who Jesus really is when seeking converts?
You see... God does work in incredible ways and you just did a part of it without even knowing! Check this out... You asked the question above. Just earlier this morning, 2 JW ladies showed up at my door. They were nice, we chatted about the bible and the world/society for about 15 min. and they left. I'm a new Christian and am actively working on my growth. The JW's weren't pushy at all; mind you, I was able to keep up with our conversations about God's laws. I thought about them a few times later today. They arrived at my home, unannounced. They looked good, smelled good - fresh - and very happy and polite. And then there was me... only been up a little over 1 hr; realized much later that I forgot to take my magnesium to help with depression and I started having 'foggy head' (as I call it); unshowered, messy and started thinking that maybe if I was a JW, I'd have it more 'together'. Then, I started to wonder about JW's and maybe God was calling me. Different JW's have landed at my door since living here for the past 4 years. So.. you come in tonight with your question. I knew nothing about this Michael = Jesus stuff and went researching. I found a thesis written by someone (URL) and they discredit it. Another way of God helping me realize that I am on the right track and not to be distracted. He did it through you. Thanks! BTW... if you see anyone looking for God's had at work, point them here.

If you have your own answer to the question Jehovah's witnesses- a question about Jesus/Michael?, then you can write your own version, using the form below for an extended answer.