Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby

FAQ

Contact

Profile

Another J.W blunder and mistruth.

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Jehovah's Witness

Author

Message

TBax
King of the Jungle

Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 1942

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:22 am Post subject:

luvnlife,

Hi, Very Happy

luvnlife wrote:

He had no beginning, no end, no (earthly) mother or father.

None is recorded. It doesn't mean he didn't have those things. Very Happy

He appears in the Bible with no record in the Bible of a beginning, no list of a geneology, no recorded end, ect...

TBax
King of the Jungle

Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 1942

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:36 am Post subject:

composer,

I am feeling frisky today, so I'll go point for point this time. This should also demonstrate why I don't normally go point for point with you.

composer wrote:

TBax wrote:

Another absolute not indicated by the scripture. For instance, if a human king is to judge all men in his kingdom does that mean the king is not a man???

2. The resurrected Christ is not a mere man.

The Saints (God willing?) will be immortalised also after their Judgment.

Your analogy is fallacious as usual.

So you entirely missed the point of my illustration? Without trying to attatch your understanding just answer the question. Your lack of understanding in this is coloring other points you think you made as well.

ILLUSTRATION:
For instance, if a human king is to judge all men in his kingdom does that mean the king is not a man???

Or try: All men must bow before the king. Does that mean the king is not a man???

composer wrote:

TBax wrote:

Plus, if angels cannot sin why do they need to be judged??? Thank you for providing that scripture that shows the angels that sinned will be judged. Much appreciated. Very Happy

4. We are discussing your nonScriptural notion that the J.W jesus is an angel. Of course the Christ Adelphian Jesus isn't an angel and of course Jesus DID NO SINS

Yes. And you provided the scripture that shows angels will be judged. Thank you. Very Happy

My ILLUSTRATION shows why Jesus wouldn't be included, or be under the authority of Paul and the others who will rule as kings with Jesus their king. Very Happy

composer wrote:

'judge angels' is better rendered as 'have authority over' as a Judge sits over the court.

Please, like that is so much different? You are trying to obscure the issue! Didn't work!

composer wrote:

5. I wish I could claim that qualification for you TBax, you need all the help you can get, but sadly for you that the angel that bore God's very name doesn't make it God (Ex. 23:21) KJV any more than ' a / the ' chief messenger (angelos) means Christ is an angel called Michael

Red herring. Not the same.

composer wrote:

6. In fact 'the chief messenger' would be God's Word, the Holy Spirit. Jesus was the mere conveyor of that Word (Acts 4:31 cf. John 14:10) KJV

Factual fallacy and red herring. "Archaggelos" isn't used in Acts 4:31 or John 14:10. Just an assumption you are making.

composer wrote:

7. Of course Heb. 1: 5 & 13 you just dismiss because they also refute your claims, but as we have seen you don't let the facts or the Scriptures stand in the way of your false doctrine.

Factual fallacy.

composer wrote:

8. Perhaps the Original Greek might help you? - Because himself the lord with a command, with a voice of a chief messenger, and with a trumpet of God will come down from heaven, and the dead ones in Anointed will be raised first; (1 Thess. 4:16) EMPHATIC Diaglott)

NB: . . . with a voice of a chief messenger . . .

Original Greek ???

Laughing

Nice try.

Factual fallacy. Actually the original greek doesn't use indefinite articles at all.
Literal word for word: 1 Thess 4:16 that SAME THE Master IN shout-of-command IN voice OF-chief-MESSENGER...

composer wrote:

NB: . . . Michael, ' one ' of the chief princes, . . .

Red herring.
Yes, there could be a number of outstanding angels that hold different levels of authority (princes). Yet that doesn't negate there is only one archangel refered to in the Bible.

composer wrote:

Sounds more plausible that 'The Lord' is accompanied by 'one of the chief angels?'

What???

composer wrote:

9. 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. (Jude 1: 9) KJV

Now according to your theory that the J.W / TBax' jesus = the archangel Michael, IF he were, then how do you explain that 'The Lord' (jesus = your Michael) says " . . . The Lord rebuke thee? . . ." Isn't Jesus already 'The Lord, and Michael is not?'

The Lord of lords is Jehovah.

2 Peter 2:11 whereas angels, although they are greater in strength and power, do not bring against them an accusation in abusive terms, [not doing so] out of respect for Jehovah.

Zechariah 3:2 Then [the angel of] Jehovah said to Satan: “Jehovah rebuke you, O Satan, yes, Jehovah rebuke you, he who is choosing Jerusalem! Is this one not a log snatched out of the fire?”

composer wrote:

Jesus should have said (according to your theory) "I rebuke you" but he didn't and that's because you are wrong (consistently) again!

Improper conclusion brought about by a strawman.

composer wrote:

10. Perhaps you could show me the geneology of Christ from the Bible that shows that Jesus descended from an angel?

Strawman. Angels don't have geneologies and don't procreate like we do.

composer wrote:

11. Finally, the problem that still remains with your theory. i.e. that the archangel Michael = the J.W Tbax' jesus, is that you still have this jesus commanded to worship himself? -

. . . And let all the angels of God worship him.

Strawman. This goes back to you not understanding my ILLUSTRATION.
For instance, if a human king is to judge all men in his kingdom does that mean the king is not a man???

composer wrote:

12. Just had another thought - NB: Let ALL the angels of god worship him, and that includes this alleged silly J.W's & TBax' Satan angel and its demon pals (if they were to literally exist)
TBax' always disobedient and trying to thwart the J.W's god's plans has to be obedient and the J.W's & Tbax' satan and pals now has to worship the J.W's angel Michael = jesus?

Wow! TBax's satan isn't that bad after all, in fact he's very obedient to the J.W's god and Michael apparently?

Strawman. Satan is no longer an angel of God.

composer wrote:

13. Jesus has a more excellent name than Michael -

Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. (Heb. 1: 4) KJV

14. Is the J.W jesus insulted when you call him Michael because Jesus is a more excellent name?

15. It says that Jesus received a 'more excellent name' than 'they'. That separates Jesus from the angels.

16. Who is gone into heaven, and is on the right hand of God; angels and authorities and powers being made subject unto him. (1 Pet. 3:22) KJV

Strawman. Goes back to the ILLUSTRATION once again.

composer wrote:

20. Remember of course the 100% self contradicting and incompetent J.W's & TBax ' god ' that said Michael ISN'T Jesus but Michael IS the Pope Oops! Michael IS the J.W's jesus.

Strawman and red herring.

Aside from your questions your entire argument is basically logical and factual fallacies. Rolling Eyes

It doesn't alter from this fact:
You admitted that "Christ is God's chief Messenger." (archaggelos)
The Bible calls Michael "the chief messenger". (archaggelos)
Therefore Jesus is Michael, "the chief messenger"! (archaggelos)

Plus, the Bible saying "ho archaggelos", literally "the archangel" or "the chief messenger" indicates there is only one.

Thank you for helping to prove that point. Very Happy

Also, thank you for providing the scripture that shows the angels that sinned will be judged. Much appreciated. Very Happy

composer wrote:

Paul speaking: - Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? . . . . . . 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? (1 Cor. 6:2 - 3) KJV

If angels cannot sin why do they need to be judged???

Hmmmmmmm?

Cheers!

Yehushuan
King Kong

Joined: 30 Mar 2006

Posts: 2469

Location: Charismatic

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:25 am Post subject:

TBax wrote:

Yet that doesn't negate there is only one archangel refered to in the Bible.

Do you by any chance actually Read what is written?

(Dan 10:13 KJV) But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.

One of, not “the one and only”.

New World Translation: Dan10:13 But the prince of the royal realm of Persia was standing in opposition to me for twenty-one days, and, look! Michael, one of the foremost princes, came to help me; and I, for my part, remained there beside the kings of Persia.

(Princes, btw, Plural, btw.)

Or do you contend there are other Michaels, and that this Michael is not that Michael?

Yehushuan

TBax
King of the Jungle

Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 1942

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 10:46 am Post subject:

Yehushuan,

Yehushuan wrote:

Do you by any chance actually Read what is written?

Yes. Do you?

Since when does "prince" = "angel"??? It is not synonymous! Very Happy

Hence: Yet that doesn't negate there is only one archangel refered to in the Bible.

You were tricked by his red herring. Embarassed

Yehushuan
King Kong

Joined: 30 Mar 2006

Posts: 2469

Location: Charismatic

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 2:22 pm Post subject:

TBax wrote:

You were tricked by his red herring.

And you did not address the issue.

Is this the same Michael? And let me be specific lest you try to wriggle out of honestly answering. Is the Michael spoken of in Daniel the same Michael spoken of in Jude 1:9 and Revelation 12:7? (Surely you can answer an easy yes or no question?)

I find the argument that one single use of one definite article in only one verse of the entire Bible can lead you to make such an audacious claim that it proves there was one and only one archangel. The article ‘ho does not carry the claim of uniform uniqueness to the universe (as in The Kremlin or The White House) anymore than saying “Go out to the car,” is meant to declare that one and only one car exists in the entire universe.

Whatever Greek scholar you’re listening to should have his Ph.D. revoked.

Now since you were so gracious to clearly and unequivocally state that ‘angel’ and ‘prince’ are not synonymous….

TBax wrote:

Since when does "prince" = "angel"??? It is not synonymous! Very Happy

Then I am overjoyed to tell you that the Messiah cannot be an angel, for Daniel clearly writes that the Messiah IS the Prince.

(Dan 9:25 KJV) Know therefore and understand, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem unto the Messiah the Prince shall be seven weeks, and threescore and two weeks: the street shall be built again, and the wall, even in troublous times.

Yehushuan

composer2005
Fierce Wolf

Joined: 14 Jul 2007

Posts: 561

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:04 pm Post subject: J.W's

Thanks Yehushuan,

TBax is long on insults and that's about it. I do not and will not lower myself to his 'standards.'

Take just one of his recent responses as his supposed 'evidence' to refute the facts -

TBax wrote:

Strawman. Satan is no longer an angel of God.

1. Despite weeks of trying, he hasn't even legitimately provided a scrap of evidence to support his claim that his Satan fallen heavenly angel spirit beling literally exists other than in his imagination, but makes further baseless conclusions on his 'imagination' and his ahem 'evidence' is merely the Hebrew Term 'Satan = adversary' in the Text?

2. He denies (again with no evidence) that Satan is just a Hebrew Term meaning 'adversary'

3. He does not read Scripture correctly, but rather reads / inserts 'what he wants' not 'what it really means' and ignores other Scriptures that do not suit his flawed ideology. (e.g. Heb. 1: 5, 13) KJV

4. He interprets 100% back-flips as 'adjustments' and not absolute self contradictions. e.g. Jesus ISN'T Michael, Jesus IS the Pope Oops! Jesus IS Michael.

5. His claim here that "Strawman. Satan is no longer an angel of God." is typically unsuported by any credible evidence. (IN fact he presents no evidence at all)

The facts are of course is ALL things belong to God ALWAYS -

For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether [they be] thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him : 17 And he is before all things, and by him all things consist. (Col. 1:16 - 17) KJV

- thus ALL things are certainly ALWAYS HIS and that would include TBax's alleged fallen angels (if they were to literally exist)

So all we have of his ahem 'evidence' is his say so that an evil spirit being called Satan literally exists(which he can't legitimately sustain) which is thus a typical, false and unsupported claim of his.

I accept that foremost his false claim Michael the archangel = Jesus must be dealt with and then his Satan theories to follow.

I do appreciate your input and observances.

Thanks

Oh yes and he pretends to be a Greek and Hebrew Scholar!

TBax
King of the Jungle

Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 1942

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:23 pm Post subject:

Yehushuan,

Yehushuan wrote:

And you did not address the issue.

I didn't realize the question needed to be answered since you were tricked by his red herring. YES, There is one Michael the archangel.

You can believe there are multiple archangels if you want. The Bible doesn't indicate that.

Your grasp on language is displayed in the following.

Y wrote:

TBax wrote:

Since when does "prince" = "angel"??? It is not synonymous!

Then I am overjoyed to tell you that the Messiah cannot be an angel, for Daniel clearly writes that the Messiah IS the Prince.

What? Was that the depth of your logic? Since it is not synonymous, because it doesn't mean angel, does not mean it cannot apply to an angel. Rolling Eyes

Yehushuan, you are displaying the same comprehensive skills as composer.

If the Greek scholars I listen to should have his Ph.D. revoked, what should happen to you?

TBax
King of the Jungle

Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 1942

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:28 pm Post subject:

composer, Yes, lets ignor the continual list of logical and factual fallacies you use and pretend you make sense.

composer2005
Fierce Wolf

Joined: 14 Jul 2007

Posts: 561

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:29 pm Post subject: J.W's

composer wrote:
NB: . . . Michael, ' one ' of the chief princes, . . .

Tbax wrote:

Red herring.
Yes, there could be a number of outstanding angels that hold different levels of authority (princes). Yet that doesn't negate there is only one archangel refered to in the Bible.

(My Bold)
Red herring you say?

Strong's Concordance -
BDB/Thayers # 1403
01403 Gabriy'el {gab-ree-ale'}
from 01397 and 0410;; n pr m
AV - Gabriel 2; 2
Gabriel = "warrior of God" or "man of God"
1) an archangel; the angel God used to send messages of great
importance to man; sent to Daniel, to Zacharias, and to Mary (My Bold)

Tbax wrote:

You can believe there are multiple archangels if you want. The Bible doesn't indicate that.

How's your theories and Watchtower teachings going now, do you still maintain the Bible doesn't indicate multiple archangels, Strong's says it does.

Cheers!

Last edited by composer2005 on Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:34 pm; edited 1 time in total

TBax
King of the Jungle

Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 1942

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 3:34 pm Post subject:

Yes. Red herring. Can you understand that Prince and angel are not synonymous! Can you comprehend this??? Oh, and your descrption of Gabrial as "an archangel" isn't found in the Bible. You do realize Strong's is not the Bible, don't you.

composer2005
Fierce Wolf

Joined: 14 Jul 2007

Posts: 561

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:14 pm Post subject: J.W's

[quote="TBax"]Yes. Red herring.

Tbax wrote:

Can you understand that Prince and angel are not synonymous!

Can you comprehend this???

synonymous adj. (often foll. by with) 1 having the same meaning. 2 suggestive of; . . . (Pocket Oxford Dictionary / POD)

You say they are NOT synonymous so what do you say to -

But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and [there is] none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince. {holdeth: Heb. strengtheneth himself} (Dan. 10:21) KJV (My Bold)

TBax wrote:

Oh, and your descrption of Gabrial as "an archangel" isn't found in the Bible. :oops:

Well your old J.W teaching manuals also agrees with Strong's and Thayer's that say there are more than one chief / archangels -

MICHAEL, [who as God,] the name given to one of the chief angels, who, in Dan. x. 13 — 21, is described as having special charge of the Israelites as a nation. Dan. xii. 1 ; Jude 9 ; Rev. xii. 7 — 9. (EMPHATIC Diaglott Alphabetical Appendix)

TBax wrote:

You do realize Strong's is not the Bible, don't you. :?:

Strong's Concordance
The Strong's concordance is a very useful tool for studying the scriptures. It takes every single word of the King James Version and lists where each word can be found in the scriptures. It is useful for locating scripture verses that you know the words to, but don't know the book, chapter and verse. . . . . One thing to keep in mind is that while the Strong's Concordance is fairly reliable in its lexicon definitions, it is relying on 19th century scholarship. One of the best ways to determine the true meaning of a word is look up that word in a Hebrew or Greek Lexicon to see how it was translated in various places . . . . http://www.eliyah.com/strongs.htm

See also: - Thayer's Lexicon 'archangel'

(Quote) . . . one of the princes and leaders of the angels . . . (unquote)

NB: ' ONE ' of the princes and leaders of the angels . . . . i.e. NOT THE ONLY ONE as TBax would have us believe.

http://cf.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?strongs=743

Oh and don't forget -

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? . . . (Heb. 1: 5) KJV

But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool? (Heb. 1:13) KJV - either of which decimate your Michael = Jesus

Cheers!

TBax
King of the Jungle

Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 1942

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:29 pm Post subject:

composer,

compoeser wrote:

So are you trying to say "prince" and "angel" are synonyms??? The scripture doesn't say that!!! Logic doesn't say that.

Is Michael a prince? Yes!
Is Michael an angel? Yes!
Does that mean prince means angel? NO!

BTW: If you continue with such ignorance in saying they are synonomous then you are saying Jesus is an angel as he is called a prince. You are trapped. Embarassed

You constructed a new strawman that neither you nor Yehushuan understand how it is one. Rolling Eyes

You both are indicating they are synonomous.

I find it extremely hard to believe that both you and Yehushuan cannot comprehend the meaning of synonym. Is it possible for two people to have such a gross lack of comprehension? Confused or disgusted

--
Yes, Strong's is a good tool. However, it is not inspired and subject to some bias, and if it makes claims that are not in the Bible, like Gabrial being "an archangel" then it isn't a truth. The Bible doesn't say that. Cool

BTW, the use of "prince" in Daniel, was to show he is a prince over people, not necessarily angels. It could include angels but:

Dan 10:21 However, I shall tell you the things noted down in the writing of truth, and there is no one holding strongly with me in these [things] but Mi´cha·el, the prince of YOU people.

Michael was the prince of Daniel and his people. Very Happy

Later called "the great prince".

Question: Why did Michael need to help that angel get to Daniel? Who was holding him up?

-------------
What, you don't think Jesus is Michael?
Well what was this?
You admitted that "Christ is God's chief Messenger." (archaggelos)
The Bible calls Michael "the chief messenger". (archaggelos)
Therefore Jesus is Michael, "the chief messenger"! (archaggelos)

Plus, the Bible saying "ho archaggelos", literally "the archangel" or "the chief messenger" indicates there is only one. The definite article is significant in greek.

Thank you for helping to prove that point. Very Happy

Also, thank you for providing the scripture that shows the angels that sinned will be judged. Much appreciated. Very Happy

composer wrote:

Paul speaking: - Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? . . . . . . 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? (1 Cor. 6:2 - 3) KJV

If angels cannot sin why do they need to be judged???

Hmmmmmmm?

Cheers!

composer2005
Fierce Wolf

Joined: 14 Jul 2007

Posts: 561

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2007 11:26 pm Post subject: J.W's

TBax wrote:

composer,

compoeser wrote:

Hmm! before you claimed that your Satan was an angel and the chief prince? -

I think you said or implied or believe that - Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, . . . (Eph. 2: 2) KJV

#1: Let us use your own analogy -

Is my Satan a prince? Yes! (Eph. 2: 2 says so)

Is my Satan an angel? Yes! ('cos I said so)

Does that mean prince means angel? NO!

You TBax are obviously the only one very confused?

You have just disproved that Michael is necessarily Jesus, thank you very much!

TBax wrote:

BTW: If you continue with such ignorance in saying they are synonomous then you are saying Jesus is an angel as he is called a prince. You are trapped. :oops:

The only one legitimately trapped is YOU!

TBax wrote:

What, you don't think Jesus is Michael?
Well what was this?
You admitted that "Christ is God's chief Messenger." (archaggelos)
The Bible calls Michael "the chief messenger". (archaggelos)
Therefore Jesus is Michael, "the chief messenger"! (archaggelos)

Plus, the Bible saying "ho archaggelos", literally "the archangel" or "the chief messenger" indicates there is only one. The definite article is significant in greek.

Thank you for helping to prove that point. :D

Well actually you disproved your own theory and what is more you now have 2 chief messengers but claim there is only one?

1. Your Michael is the only chief messenger
2. Your Satan is also the chief messenger, you know the one you said wanted to be like God and quoted Lucifer = your alleged Satan spirit being?

TBax wrote:

Also, thank you for providing the scripture that shows the angels that sinned will be judged. Much appreciated. :D

I am happy to increase your poor knowledge of Scripture because IF you had actually read and comprehended the Bible you wouldn't have needed ME to point it out to you.

Only too happy to help take your knowledge from its current zero to something slightly above zero at the moment (perhaps always just above zero with your lack of comprehension even about your own current beliefs See: #1 above?)

composer wrote:

Paul speaking: - Do ye not know that the saints shall judge the world? . . . . . . 3 Know ye not that we shall judge angels? (1 Cor. 6:2 - 3) KJV

TBax wrote:

If angels cannot sin why do they need to be judged???

It has been proven that angels never die and are like Christ now given immortality and that means they can never die as Christ can never die again nor ever sin because as you can never die then you can never sin. (Rom. 6:23 cf. Luke 20:36) KJV

"Jesus and the Saints, equal in physical constitution to the Elohim, and superior to them in the Kingdom of God, will judge, rule or direct the movements of the Elohim in governing the nations committed to their charge. Hence, 'Know you not that we (the saints) shall judge Angels?' (1- Cor. 6:3). They will cooperate with the Saints as their subordinates, having ceded to them their present direction of the affairs of the nations." (Herald 1847 by Dr. John Thomas)

All this and Heb. 1:5 & 1:13 which you continue to ignore unambiguously expose your foolishness in disregarding them.

The Bible says: For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. . . . (Heb. 1:5, 6) KJV

TBax misreads this something like ' Duh! god said said it to Michael and although it is Michael = Jesus, Michael must obey God and worship his other self Jesus?

Again TBax's 'logic' -

The Bible says: But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool (Heb. 1:13) KJV

TBax reads as "To Michael of course" you know, the Michael the angel who is also Jesus at the same time.

Even more - Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name : 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of [things] in heaven, and [things] in earth, and [things] under the earth; 11 And [that] every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ [is] Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phil. 2;9 - 11) KJV

So Tbax' Michael = Jesus has one name more exalted than its other name and is the name above its other name and when the name Jesus is mentioned Michael = Jesus must bow down before itself and Michael's I mean Jesus' tongue, (which is also apparently Michael's tongue) must confess that Jesus is Lord but not to its other self Michael?

WoW!

No small wonder you are confused TBax. (See also your other confusion: - #1 above)

Cheers!

TBax
King of the Jungle

Joined: 24 Oct 2005

Posts: 1942

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:55 am Post subject:

composer,

composer wrote:

What are you talking about? You are totally making things up now. #Nooo...not me!

Your 1. is the only correct part.

Dude, you write long nonsensical posts yet cannot understand a simple concept.

Lets simplify. Is "prince" synonomous with "angel"?

If you continue with such ignorance in saying they are synonomous then you are saying Jesus is an angel as he is called a prince. You are trapped. Embarassed

Last edited by TBax on Wed Dec 19, 2007 8:20 am; edited 2 times in total

Yehushuan
King Kong

Joined: 30 Mar 2006

Posts: 2469

Location: Charismatic

Posted: Wed Dec 19, 2007 4:55 am Post subject:

TBax wrote:

You can believe there are multiple archangels if you want. The Bible doesn't indicate that.

TBax, you may think your logic and exegesis are straightforward, but I strongly doubt that many of my colleagues would agree.

If I understand correctly, you are of the opinion that the definite article in Greek indicates universal singularity; that since Jude 1:9 says “the” archangel, then that means there is only one. Yes?

Well the English phrase “the angel of the LORD” found in Mat 1:24 also has the definite article, so this would mean, then, that there is only one angel of the Lord, wouldn’t it.

So let me get out the Greek Interlinear published by the Watchtower. We read (from YOUR New Testament):

Mat. 4:6 THE angel
Mat. 11:10 THE angel
Mat. 13:41 THE angel
Mat. 13:49 THE angel
Mat. 16:27 THE angel
Mat. 18:10 THE angel
Mat. 24:31 THE angel
Mat. 24:36 THE angel
Mat. 25:31 THE angel
Mat. 25:41 THE angel
Mat. 28:5 THE angel
Mark 1:2 THE angel
Mark 1:13 THE angel

Well TBax, I’m not going to list all 170. You have one verse claiming the definite article proves there is only one arch angel, so I guess my 170 verses should be enough proof for you that there is only one angel. Which is obviously a ridiculous assertion in that the definite article is also used in Mark 1:13 for the phrase “the angels” plural.

Hence, one just cannot conclude that the existence of the definite article in Jude 1:9 proves that there exists only one archangel.

I would strongly suggest you contact one of your own Greek “experts” and run your argument by him. (So he can let you know you’ve been wrong.)

Now Just to make sure I don’t make a mistake, I had asked:

Is the Michael spoken of in Daniel the same Michael spoken of in Jude 1:9 and Revelation 12:7?

And you had answered:

TBax wrote:

YES, There is one Michael the archangel.

So in this case, then, you would agree that “The” archangel is “one of” many chief princes?

It would probably do you some good to start looking at that word “prince,” and I mean the Hebrew word “sar” (Strong’s 8269) in that it too means “chief.” So we have Michael described in the Old Testament as one of the ‘eldest’ chiefs, and in the New Testament as a messenger ‘chief’. While prince is not synonymous with angel, it IS synonymous with ‘arch’ (both mean ruler).

So you are right in that ‘prince’ is not synonymous with ‘angel’ because Daniel explicitly states the Messiah is prince, but nowhere is it said that Messiah is angel. (Rather a large omission wouldn’t you think?)

TBax wrote:

You were tricked by his red herring. Embarassed

“His” red herring? Sorry, I didn’t read any of composer’s posts. Just yours.

Yehushuan

Display posts from previous:

	Bible-Discussion.com Forum Index -> Jehovah's Witness	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 5 of 8