The WT Society and Pagan Spiritism

[Krusader]

It appears that the Watchtower Society is even willing to claim communication with the dead to validate its claim to being God's sole channel of truth:

In Finished Mystery, pg. 144, published by the Society, it states that Russell (Charles T. Russell, founder of the Society) is still managing every feature of the harvest work from beyond the veil. In other words, the dead Russell was still in charge of the Society and managing it, although he was deceased.

More recently, the Society, in its book, "Revelation its Grand Climax at Hand, "suggests that resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the" communication of "divine truths today." Now, these resurrected ones spoken of are dead members of the 144,000 - supposedly changed to spirit life in heaven.

Both Russell and the dead "24-elder" group are dead - to attempt to communicate with them, or to receive any instruction from them, is necromancy - spiritism, something totally condemned in Scripture.

While the Society likes to point fingers at Christians and accuse them of "paganistic" practices, it appears that the greates practitioner of paganism is the Society itself, which receives its doctrines and teachings from the dead.

[Anarthrous]

It appears that the Watchtower Society is even willing to claim communication with the dead to validate its claim to being God's sole channel of truth:

In Finished Mystery, pg. 144, published by the Society, it states that Russell (Charles T. Russell, founder of the Society) is still managing every feature of the harvest work from beyond the veil. In other words, the dead Russell was still in charge of the Society and managing it, although he was deceased.

More recently, the Society, in its book, "Revelation its Grand Climax at Hand, "suggests that resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the" communication of "divine truths today." Now, these resurrected ones spoken of are dead members of the 144,000 - supposedly changed to spirit life in heaven.

Both Russell and the dead "24-elder" group are dead - to attempt to communicate with them, or to receive any instruction from them, is necromancy - spiritism, something totally condemned in Scripture.

While the Society likes to point fingers at Christians and accuse them of "paganistic" practices, it appears that the greates practitioner of paganism is the Society itself, which receives its doctrines and teachings from the dead.
Brother Russell died before the books completion in 1916 while on a preaching compaign. "The Finished Mystery" was the seventh in seven volumes of "Studies in the scriptures". The next President, John F. Rutherford, and the other brothers finished the writing in 1917 I believe, since it was banned in 1918 in Canada. It was claimed by clergy to be treasonous, but the book said only that we put our faith in God's heavenly kingdom, and in not one kingdom of man.

[Anarthrous]

Crusader said:

More recently, the Society, in its book, "Revelation its Grand Climax at Hand, "suggests that resurrected ones of the 24-elders group may be involved in the" communication of "divine truths today." Now, these resurrected ones spoken of are dead members of the 144,000 - supposedly changed to spirit life in heaven.

Both Russell and the dead "24-elder" group are dead - to attempt to communicate with them, or to receive any instruction from them, is necromancy - spiritism, something totally condemned in Scripture.

Crusader,
You attest to Jehovah's Witnesses belief that dead members of the 144,000 are living in heaven. If that JW's belief is true, then they certainly wouldn't be recieving aid from dead ones would they?

Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the "gentile times" mentioned at Luke 21:24 ended in 1914, the last days began in 1914, and that Christ began to carry out God's will in that year.

Crusader, When do you believe the "gentile times" end?


Jehovah's Witnesses also believe that in 1914, the "first resurrection" of Revelation 20:4-6 began.
1 Thes 4:15-17 tell us the dead in christ will rise first during Christ's presence, that is his parousia.
"15 For this is what we tell YOU by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord shall in no way precede those who have fallen asleep [in death]; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we shall always be with [the] Lord."

Then after the resurrection to heaven, the ones still alive on earth will be, as 1 Cor 15:51, 52 says:
"51 Look! I tell YOU a sacred secret: We shall not all fall asleep [in death], but we shall all be changed, 52 in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, during the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised up incorruptible, and we shall be changed."

Notice "during the last trumpet" the dead will be raised up, but the living remnant of the 144,000 shall be "changed", as they are "caught away in clouds", just as Jesus was at Acts 1:9. Revelation 10:7 tells us the 7th trumpet concludes God's secrets. That makes it logical for the living ones to be changed at that time, that is, during the last trumpet.
"7 but in the days of the sounding of the seventh angel, when he is about to blow his trumpet, the sacred secret of God according to the good news which he declared to his own slaves the prophets is indeed brought to a finish.”

I can help to explain Jehovah's Witnesses understanding of the year 1914 AD if requested.
Scripture quotes from: http://www.watchtower.org/bible/index.htm

[Lady Macbeth]

You attest to Jehovah's Witnesses belief that dead members of the 144,000 are living in heaven. If that JW's belief is true, then they certainly wouldn't be recieving aid from dead ones would they?

And yet when a Pagan receives aid from or speaks with someone who is living in Heaven, the Summerlands, or anywhere else beyond the Veil, it's considered necromancy? :hrm:

It is or it isn't, and it's allowed or it's not allowed. Giving a different name to the same practice just because it belongs to a different group doesn't change its status or rights.

[Krusader]

And yet when a Pagan receives aid from or speaks with someone who is living in Heaven, the Summerlands, or anywhere else beyond the Veil, it's considered necromancy? :hrm:

It is or it isn't, and it's allowed or it's not allowed. Giving a different name to the same practice just because it belongs to a different group doesn't change its status or rights.

The Lady is right. In fact, the Watchtower has taught that the society is getting direction from their dead leaders, and this is just plain necromancy. I wrote an article on this subject when their claim appared in their Revelation book.

[Oldmonk]

The Lady is right. In fact, the Watchtower has taught that the society is getting direction from their dead leaders, and this is just plain necromancy. I wrote an article on this subject when their claim appared in their Revelation book.


Do not forget the Johannes Greber quotes!!! Johannes Greber is used by the Society to prop up their ;"...and the word was a god." translation of John 1:1. If you look into Johannes Greber you will find that he was an ex-rc priest who decided to "correct" scripture via mediumship. In the booklet;" The Word, Who is he according to John" Johannas Greeber is used to show the "a god" reading is correct. The Society doesn't inform you that they already had condemned him for :spiritism " in the Watchtower long before they quoted him!! Just yet another example of the Watch Tower flip flops :lol: See Below for details.

How the Watchtower quoted the source
They made reference to him at least 7 times in various Watchtower publications from 1962 through 1976.

1932: Greber wrote his book where he gives his personal testimony as an occult spiritist: "Communication with the Spirit World of God--Its Laws and Purpose"
1937: Greber produces his Bible translation, upon which the New World Translation was based: "New Translation and Explanation by Greber"
Before 1956: The Johannes Greber Memorial Foundation provided a photo-copy of a letter from the Watchtower Society acknowledging receipt before 1956, of several of his New Testaments, as well as Greber's book "Communication with the Spirit World of God."
1956: They published an article in the Watchtower of February 15, 1956 where they stated that Johannes Greber was involved with spirits: "Communication with the Spirit World: Its Laws and Its Purpose."... In keeping with his Roman Catholic extraction Greber's translation is bound with a gold-leaf cross on its stiff front cover. In the Foreward of his aforementioned book ex-priest Greber says: "The most significant spiritualistic book is the Bible." Under this impression Greber endeavors to make his New Testament translation read very spiritualistic...Greber's translation of these verses [1 John 4:1-3] reads: "My dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, to learn whether they come from God. For many false spirits have emerged from the abyss...and are speaking through human mediums ..." Very plainly the spirits in which ex-priest Greber believes helped him in his translation. (Watchtower 2/15/56 pg. 111)
1961: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures: With absolute full knowledge of Greber's occult connection with the spirit world, they deliberately used his "translation" of the bible as a basis for their "NWT", in 1961.
1962: "Similar is the reading by a former Roman Catholic priest: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. (The Word-Who is He? -According to John, 1962, p5; quoting, The New Testament - A New Translation and Explanation...by Johannes Greber. Footnote at bottom of Watchtower booklet page: "The New Testament -- a New Translation and Explanation" Based on the Oldest Manuscripts, by Johannes Greber (a translation from German into English), edition of 1937, the front cover of this bound translation being stamped with a gold cross.")
1965: Johannes Greber translation referred to in "Make Sure of All Things Hold Fast to What is Fine " 1965 ed., page 489.
1971: "A translation by the former Roman Catholic priest Johannes Greber (1937 ed.) renders the second appearance of the word "god" in the sentence as "a god."" (Aid to Bible Understanding 1971, p 1669)
1971: "Tombs were laid open, and many bodies of those buried were tossed upright. In this posture they projected from the graves and were seen by many who passed by the place on their way back to the city." (Aid to Bible Understanding pg. 1134, quoting, The translation by Johannes Greber, 1937, in support of the Watchtower's translation of Matt 27:52, which is rendered to eliminate the reference to the resurrection of the dead which occurred at the time of the death of Jesus: )
1976: References to Greber's translation appears several times in the Watchtower, as late as 1976.
After 1976 they never again used him as a reference source.
1983: They finally condemned him in 1983: On page 31 of the April 1, 1983 Watchtower magazine: "Why, in recent years, has The Watchtower not made use of the translation by the former Catholic priest, Johannes Greber? ... This translator relied on "God's Spirit World" to clarify for him how he should translate difficult passages. It is stated: "His wife, a medium of God's spirit world, was often instrumental in conveying the correct answers from God's Messengers to Pastor Greber. The Watchtower has deemed it improper to make use of a translation that has such a close rapport with spiritism (Deuteronomy 18:10-2)."

[Krusader]

Do not forget the Johannes Greber quotes!!! Johannes Greber is used by the Society to prop up their ;"...and the word was a god." translation of John 1:1. If you look into Johannes Greber you will find that he was an ex-rc priest who decided to "correct" scripture via mediumship. In the booklet;" The Word, Who is he according to John" Johannas Greeber is used to show the "a god" reading is correct. The Society doesn't inform you that they already had condemned him for :spiritism " in the Watchtower long before they quoted him!! Just yet another example of the Watch Tower flip flops :lol: See Below for details.

How the Watchtower quoted the source
They made reference to him at least 7 times in various Watchtower publications from 1962 through 1976.

1932: Greber wrote his book where he gives his personal testimony as an occult spiritist: "Communication with the Spirit World of God--Its Laws and Purpose"
1937: Greber produces his Bible translation, upon which the New World Translation was based: "New Translation and Explanation by Greber"
Before 1956: The Johannes Greber Memorial Foundation provided a photo-copy of a letter from the Watchtower Society acknowledging receipt before 1956, of several of his New Testaments, as well as Greber's book "Communication with the Spirit World of God."
1956: They published an article in the Watchtower of February 15, 1956 where they stated that Johannes Greber was involved with spirits: "Communication with the Spirit World: Its Laws and Its Purpose."... In keeping with his Roman Catholic extraction Greber's translation is bound with a gold-leaf cross on its stiff front cover. In the Foreward of his aforementioned book ex-priest Greber says: "The most significant spiritualistic book is the Bible." Under this impression Greber endeavors to make his New Testament translation read very spiritualistic...Greber's translation of these verses [1 John 4:1-3] reads: "My dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits, to learn whether they come from God. For many false spirits have emerged from the abyss...and are speaking through human mediums ..." Very plainly the spirits in which ex-priest Greber believes helped him in his translation. (Watchtower 2/15/56 pg. 111)
1961: New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures: With absolute full knowledge of Greber's occult connection with the spirit world, they deliberately used his "translation" of the bible as a basis for their "NWT", in 1961.
1962: "Similar is the reading by a former Roman Catholic priest: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. (The Word-Who is He? -According to John, 1962, p5; quoting, The New Testament - A New Translation and Explanation...by Johannes Greber. Footnote at bottom of Watchtower booklet page: "The New Testament -- a New Translation and Explanation" Based on the Oldest Manuscripts, by Johannes Greber (a translation from German into English), edition of 1937, the front cover of this bound translation being stamped with a gold cross.")
1965: Johannes Greber translation referred to in "Make Sure of All Things Hold Fast to What is Fine " 1965 ed., page 489.
1971: "A translation by the former Roman Catholic priest Johannes Greber (1937 ed.) renders the second appearance of the word "god" in the sentence as "a god."" (Aid to Bible Understanding 1971, p 1669)
1971: "Tombs were laid open, and many bodies of those buried were tossed upright. In this posture they projected from the graves and were seen by many who passed by the place on their way back to the city." (Aid to Bible Understanding pg. 1134, quoting, The translation by Johannes Greber, 1937, in support of the Watchtower's translation of Matt 27:52, which is rendered to eliminate the reference to the resurrection of the dead which occurred at the time of the death of Jesus: )
1976: References to Greber's translation appears several times in the Watchtower, as late as 1976.
After 1976 they never again used him as a reference source.
1983: They finally condemned him in 1983: On page 31 of the April 1, 1983 Watchtower magazine: "Why, in recent years, has The Watchtower not made use of the translation by the former Catholic priest, Johannes Greber? ... This translator relied on "God's Spirit World" to clarify for him how he should translate difficult passages. It is stated: "His wife, a medium of God's spirit world, was often instrumental in conveying the correct answers from God's Messengers to Pastor Greber. The Watchtower has deemed it improper to make use of a translation that has such a close rapport with spiritism (Deuteronomy 18:10-2)."

Exactly. Gerber was an occultist, and we know from whence cometh the Watchtower doctrine concerning Christ.

[Anarthrous]

Wow, sounds like you gals are on a real [literal] witch hunt. I am glad that you were able to keep bias out of this discussion.

I even missed the first time that Crusader said that the Watchtower Society:

"recieves its doctrines and teachings from the dead"

Is that across the board or just mostly?

[Krusader]

Wow, sounds like you gals are on a real [literal] witch hunt. I am glad that you were able to keep bias out of this discussion.

I even missed the first time that Crusader said that the Watchtower Society:

"recieves its doctrines and teachings from the dead"

Is that across the board or just mostly?

Sorry, it was the Society which said it was receiving its doctrines from the great beyond. Why not read about it in their book, "Revelation."

[Sparko]

what is especially troubling is that the watchtower now claims that Russell was wrong on many of his teachings, such as using the Cross symbol and his teaching on the Great Pyramid, saying he was pagan. So now they are receiving guidance from an admitted pagan. No wonder they are so messed up. :hehe:

[Oldmonk]

what is especially troubling is that the watchtower now claims that Russell was wrong on many of his teachings, such as using the Cross symbol and his teaching on the Great Pyramid, saying he was pagan. So now they are receiving guidance from an admitted pagan. No wonder they are so messed up. :hehe:


As I have mentioned (Here or another thread..can't remember) the JW's find all their doctrines from the early Adventists or Millerites. All of the dates proposed for the second coming of Christ were based on Miller's work and Ellen G. White. In fact Russell has many connections with some prominant Adventists. He helped and co-edited a magazine with George Storrs and also co-authored a book with N. H. Barbour entitled " The Three Worlds". Russell later left the adventists but kept much of the doctrine. It was the Adventists who first said that Jesus was not God but Michael the Arch Angel, It was Adventism that denyed eternal hell ... for anihilationism ( They still hold this view) . Ellen White declaired that the doors of Mercy were shut in 1844 and that the Sabbath ( and not the Holy Spirit) was the seal of God to His people.
It was the Adventists who proclaimed that something happened in 1844... Ie. Investigative judgment.... That Jesus at THAT time entered into the Holy of Holies in Heaven and STARTED to attone for the sins of His people... He is presumably still doing so... Making sure that we DESERVE salvation the FREE gift I think ( tongue WAY in Cheek HERE!!) and that we observe the Sabbath. And amoung Adventists it is unwise to argue with Mrs. White!!!:)

[Sparko]

didn't the 7th day adventists recently renounce their heretical views and accepted the trinity?

[NonTrinitarian]

didn't the 7th day adventists recently renounce their heretical views and accepted the trinity?

To my knowledge the SDA have always believed in the Trinity.

[Sparko]

To my knowledge the SDA have always believed in the Trinity.

yeah they seem to claim that now. but any cursory research into their past will show that to be false. Especially if you read some of their founder's writings.

They are still pretty messed up, doctrinally. but they have come a long way from their millerite beginnings. Many will now claim that they believe in the trinity and that Jesus is God, but that he is also michael the archangel (trying to reconcile their earlier heresies with orthodox doctrines)

[NonTrinitarian]

yeah they seem to claim that now. but any cursory research into their past will show that to be false. Especially if you read some of their founder's writings.

They are still pretty messed up, doctrinally. but they have come a long way from their millerite beginnings. Many will now claim that they believe in the trinity and that Jesus is God, but that he is also michael the archangel (trying to reconcile their earlier heresies with orthodox doctrines)

There are a number of Trinitarians who don't believe Michael is a created angel. They think Michael is just another name for Jesus and that calling Jesus an angel doesn't mean he is any less God since "angel" can mean more than a created being. Ie., many believe the "angel of YHWH" is Jesus. I've heard many Trinitarians here say as much.

[Oldmonk]

didn't the 7th day adventists recently renounce their heretical views and accepted the trinity?


Yes they now accept the trinity. To my mind however their devotion to Ellen White makes them on the fringe of a cult. I am sorry but Ellen White plagerized and made far too many mistakes to be called "Inspired" or anything else!!!

[Oldmonk]

To my knowledge the SDA have always believed in the Trinity.

That is incorrect! They viewed Jesus as Michael the arch Angel and accepted the trinity later in their history. You might call the JW's the orthadox Adventists:)

[Oldmonk]

yeah they seem to claim that now. but any cursory research into their past will show that to be false. Especially if you read some of their founder's writings.

They are still pretty messed up, doctrinally. but they have come a long way from their millerite beginnings. Many will now claim that they believe in the trinity and that Jesus is God, but that he is also michael the archangel (trying to reconcile their earlier heresies with orthodox doctrines)

EXACTLY: That is one of my BIGGEST issues with the SDA's They NEVER seem to want to admit they were WRONG as history and some common sense would dictate.

[Oldmonk]

There are a number of Trinitarians who don't believe Michael is a created angel. They think Michael is just another name for Jesus and that calling Jesus an angel doesn't mean he is any less God since "angel" can mean more than a created being. Ie., many believe the "angel of YHWH" is Jesus. I've heard many Trinitarians here say as much.


Tere is truth in what you are saying though we must remember what Hebrews 1 says: Hebrews shows clearly that Jesus is NOT an angel in essence. Also if we look at Jude where it talks about Michael not willing to bring a railling accusation against Satan. We find no such restraint with Jesus however!!!

[Krusader]

Tere is truth in what you are saying though we must remember what Hebrews 1 says: Hebrews shows clearly that Jesus is NOT an angel in essence. Also if we look at Jude where it talks about Michael not willing to bring a railling accusation against Satan. We find no such restraint with Jesus however!!!

Absolutely true. Unfortunately, John Calvin thought that Michael was another name for Jesus - one of the few times I believe he was in complete error.

[NonTrinitarian]

Absolutely true. Unfortunately, John Calvin thought that Michael was another name for Jesus - one of the few times I believe he was in complete error.

Only if you believe Michael is a created angel. (Which is what I believe.) But numerous Trinitarians do not think Michael is a created angel, they think it is Jesus' heavenly name. (He wasn't called Jesus before he was born of Mary so he had to have some name.) If you take away the thought that Michael is a created angel and instead say he is Chief of the Angels (which is what archangel means), aka God the Son, then where did Calvin go wrong?

BTW, in regards to Jude and Michael, not factored into that argument is the element of time. When Michael argued with Satan it was not time for him to act against Satan but in Rev 12 we see him do more than just rebuke Satan, he throws him out of heaven.

[Krusader]

Only if you believe Michael is a created angel. (Which is what I believe.) But numerous Trinitarians do not think Michael is a created angel, they think it is Jesus' heavenly name. (He wasn't called Jesus before he was born of Mary so he had to have some name.) If you take away the thought that Michael is a created angel and instead say he is Chief of the Angels (which is what archangel means), aka God the Son, then where did Calvin go wrong?

BTW, in regards to Jude and Michael, not factored into that argument is the element of time. When Michael argued with Satan it was not time for him to act against Satan but in Rev 12 we see him do more than just rebuke Satan, he throws him out of heaven.

What "numerous" Trinitarians do you speak of? Most Calvinists that I know absolutely disagree with John Calvin on the issue. That leaves the 7th - day Adventists, which is an heterodox group.

[NonTrinitarian]

What "numerous" Trinitarians do you speak of? Most Calvinists that I know absolutely disagree with John Calvin on the issue. That leaves the 7th - day Adventists, which is an heterodox group.

search the internet and discover for yourself.

[Sparko]

usually when you make a claim, nontrin, it is up to YOU to offer up evidence, not say "look for yourself"

[NonTrinitarian]

usually when you make a claim, nontrin, it is up to YOU to offer up evidence, not say "look for yourself"

Well, if you've been paying attention, she has made claims about JW's but when challenged on them, she doesn't respond. Just kinda sits back and says nothing. So I'm just giving her a taste of her own medicine.

[Oldmonk]

Only if you believe Michael is a created angel. (Which is what I believe.) But numerous Trinitarians do not think Michael is a created angel, they think it is Jesus' heavenly name. (He wasn't called Jesus before he was born of Mary so he had to have some name.) If you take away the thought that Michael is a created angel and instead say he is Chief of the Angels (which is what archangel means), aka God the Son, then where did Calvin go wrong?

BTW, in regards to Jude and Michael, not factored into that argument is the element of time. When Michael argued with Satan it was not time for him to act against Satan but in Rev 12 we see him do more than just rebuke Satan, he throws him out of heaven.


I know no such Christian group. For one thing it intimates a few things that would not square with scripture. Michael is ONE OF the arch angels...ie . there are more of his kind or ilk. Jesus INSISTED that he was the ONLY Son of God. So Jesus could not be Michael because other arch angels have the same essence as Michael, but Jesus has unique essence only found in what we call GOD. And as I said Hebrews 1 comes into play here ; To what angel did the Father say Thou art my Son ,This day I have begotten thee. And of course a tough verse for JW's . But unto the Son HE saith Thy throne O GOD is an everlasting.... I can see no way of relating these truths to Jesus being Michael.
The Angel of the LORD I think is Jesus though because that Angel is closely associated in doing things that God claims to have done...ie. drownd the Egyptians in the Red Sea. Another thing that makes the Angel of the LORD unique is that he is ALWAYS refered to in the singular...ie. No others like Him. He is the ONLY angel that is said to have the divine name IN Him. I take this to refer to his essence. If we look at Isaiah we find;
Isaiah 42:8
"I am the LORD; that is my name! I will not give my glory to another or my praise to idols.

We can see that when Moses asks to see the LORD the LORD reveals His glory by speaking His Name!! Thus the angel of the LORD HAS the Glory of GOD in him by the virtue of having his Name in him.

[Krusader]

search the internet and discover for yourself.

Which means that NT has been caught in a big old fib.

Actually, I've researched this topic completely - only SDA (and offshoots) hold to this view, not numerous Christians. Also, Calvin did teach that Michael could be a title for Jesus, but also said that this was his private opinion.

So, search the net all you want, you'll not find "numerous" Christians that hold to the Jesus=Michael fable.

[NonTrinitarian]

Which means that NT has been caught in a big old fib.

Actually, I've researched this topic completely - only SDA (and offshoots) hold to this view, not numerous Christians. Also, Calvin did teach that Michael could be a title for Jesus, but also said that this was his private opinion.

So, search the net all you want, you'll not find "numerous" Christians that hold to the Jesus=Michael fable.

What an goober. Define "numerous" for me Einstein.

I just went to google.com and searched michael archangel Jesus and within 3 pages found three different sites (none of which were JW) who argue Jesus is Michael.

And for the old guy, chipmunk, whatever he is, he's talking out of both sides of his mouth. On one hand he argues Jesus couldn't be an angel and mentions Hebrews (ooh, like I hadn't read that verse before) and then turns around and claims the angel of the Lord is Jesus. So what is it dude? How is it ok for him to be an angel of the Lord but not be Chief of the angels? Is not Jesus Chief of the angels?

Goodness we've got some people with some reading comprehension problems. This guy rambles on about how Jesus is God and how he can't be an angel when I clearly said people do believe he is God, that he's not a created angel but that he is Michael, the CHIEF of the angels. (the scriptures only mention one archangel, BTW)

[Krusader]

What an goober. Define "numerous" for me Einstein.

I just went to google.com and searched michael archangel Jesus and within 3 pages found three different sites (none of which were JW) who argue Jesus is Michael.

And for the old guy, chipmunk, whatever he is, he's talking out of both sides of his mouth. On one hand he argues Jesus couldn't be an angel and mentions Hebrews (ooh, like I hadn't read that verse before) and then turns around and claims the angel of the Lord is Jesus. So what is it dude? How is it ok for him to be an angel of the Lord but not be Chief of the angels? Is not Jesus Chief of the angels?

Goodness we've got some people with some reading comprehension problems. This guy rambles on about how Jesus is God and how he can't be an angel when I clearly said people do believe he is God, that he's not a created angel but that he is Michael, the CHIEF of the angels. (the scriptures only mention one archangel, BTW)

And those sites are Adventist related. By the way, your name-calling betrays a real problem with JWs which I've encontered before. They are unable to defend their flaw-filled religion, so they resort to angry retorts.

[NonTrinitarian]

And those sites are Adventist related. By the way, your name-calling betrays a real problem with JWs which I've encontered before. They are unable to defend their flaw-filled religion, so they resort to angry retorts.

Maybe when I get a few moments I'll dig up some of the garbage you've hurled. Then we'll review this post.

[Krusader]

Maybe when I get a few moments I'll dig up some of the garbage you've hurled. Then we'll review this post.

Yes, but I hurl it with class.

[Topherlee]

Maybe when I get a few moments I'll dig up some of the garbage you've hurled. Then we'll review this post.


Open for your interpretation; please not insults...

KJV John
1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God (Divine).
1:2 The same (Michael) was in the beginning with God.
1:3 All things were made by him (came into existence through him); and without him was not any thing made that was made (did not a thing exist of course, with the exception of God).
1:4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
1:5 And the light (Michael) shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. (God has always existed. When Michael was created, he was the light that shined in the darkness.)

1:9 That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world.
1:10 He was in the world, and the world was made by him (came into existence), and the world knew him not.
1:11 He came unto his own, and his own received him not (the sons of God – angels).
1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God (angels), even to them that believe on his name:
1:13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.
1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten (unique, one of a kind) of the Father,) full of grace and truth. See Revelation 3:14... the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Michael is the very expression (manifestation – not incarnation) of what God is.
Manifestation is biblical – incarnation is not.

KJV Colossians
1:15 Who is the image of the invisible God (Michael - who is like God), the firstborn (chosen) of every creature:
1:18 …who is the beginning… (God has no beginning)
1:19 For it pleased the Father that in him should all fullness dwell; - Michael – who is like God; by authority.
KJV Matthew
28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (God is the only one who can give authority and this authority has been given to Jesus.)

KJV 1 Corinthians
15:28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. (The Son is subjective - servant to God the Father.)
11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.

The following is when Jesus entered into Capernaum and came unto a man with an unclean spirit, possessed of demons. They do not refer to Jesus as God; they refer to Jesus as the “Holy One of God”.

KJV Mark
1:24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.

Keep in mind that demons are angels; evil supernatural angels.

KJV Mark
1:34 And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.

"Archangel" means "Chief of the angels."
Among God's spirit servants, only two names are associated with authority over
Angels: Michael and Jesus Christ. (Matthew 16:27; 25:31; 2 Thessalonians 1:7)

KJV 1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord (Jesus) himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

KJV 2 Thessalonians 1:7
And to you who are troubled rest with us, when the Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven with his mighty angels,

Who cast Satan out of Heaven? How can the devils, as mentioned in the book of Mark, say that “they knew him” and that he was the “Holy One of God”?

KJV Revelations 12:7
And there was war in heaven: Michael and his angels fought against the dragon; and the dragon fought and his angels,

Taken from an article:
This is the beginning of the "short period of time" before Satan's
wicked system is completely destroyed. After the end of Babylon the Great
at the hands of the nations, the nations themselves are destroyed by Jesus
and his angelic armies. (Revelation 12:12; 17:16, 17; 19:11-16) Finally,
Satan is abyssed for a thousand years, after which he suffers complete
annihilation in "the lake of fire." (Revelation 20:1, 2, 10) This -- the
long-promised final `crushing of Satan's head' -- is also accomplished by
Jesus, along with his resurrected spiritual brothers. -- Genesis 3:15;
Galatians 3:16; Romans 16:20.
Since Jesus is the one prophesied to crush Satan's head, and since he
accomplishes all these other judgement acts, it is only logical to conclude
that he would lead heaven's armies in the casting of Satan out of heaven.
Hence, the conquering Michael referred to in Revelation 12 must be Jesus,
who was told by Jehovah to "go subduing in the midst of [his] enemies." --
Psalm 110:1, 2; Acts 2:34, 35.
The appearance of the name Michael, instead of Jesus, in Revelation
chapter 12 draws our attention to the prophecy considered earlier in Daniel
chapter 12. In Daniel we read of Michael's standing up. (Daniel 12:1) In
Revelation chapter 12, Michael acts like a conquering monarch throwing Satan
down to the earth. The result: "Woe for the earth and for the sea." --
Revelation 12:12.
Well, in other parts of this same prophecy, the term "stand up" means
that the person assumes authority to rule as a king. (Daniel 11:3, 4, 7, 20,
21) Hence, when Michael "stands up" he, too, starts to rule as a king.

The bible is clear in Revelations as to who will be coming;
22:20 He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly (YHVH God). Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

When did Jehovah God become a Father? When, "the beginning of the creation of God" (Rev 3:14) - Jesus (Michael) was created. We were created in God's image. We are fathers of our children. My son is in my image, he is my expression, but, my child is not me.

[Oldmonk]

What an goober. Define "numerous" for me Einstein.

I just went to google.com and searched michael archangel Jesus and within 3 pages found three different sites (none of which were JW) who argue Jesus is Michael.

And for the old guy, chipmunk, whatever he is, he's talking out of both sides of his mouth. On one hand he argues Jesus couldn't be an angel and mentions Hebrews (ooh, like I hadn't read that verse before) and then turns around and claims the angel of the Lord is Jesus. So what is it dude? How is it ok for him to be an angel of the Lord but not be Chief of the angels? Is not Jesus Chief of the angels?

Goodness we've got some people with some reading comprehension problems. This guy rambles on about how Jesus is God and how he can't be an angel when I clearly said people do believe he is God, that he's not a created angel but that he is Michael, the CHIEF of the angels. (the scriptures only mention one archangel, BTW)


By your own logic then Michael , who you say is CHIEF of archangels , is Chief of ONE... HIMSELF?!?!REALLY!!!! Lets use some elementry LOGIC.!! To be chief of something implies you are not the ONLY ONE!!! By the way the scriptures DO say that Michael is not the only one!!
Daniel 10:13But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia.


You must also realize that a theophany ( that is an appearance of God on Earth) would look much the same as an angel to us. The Hebrew writers called these apperances as angelic because that was their perspective ... not God's. Angels are ALL created according to any Rabbi. And I know of at least 3 arch angels that the Jewish people believe to exist. Raphael being the one they say is in charge of watching over the nation of Israel. And if you knew your scriptures you would know that angel means messenger, thus I could be an angel to you. The DIFFERENCE if you followed what I was saying about the Angel of the LORD is this; Though to us he would SEEM to be an angel his essence is not angelic but DIVINE as my post CLEARLY indicated. Even the scriptures say that WE are Gods!!! Are we in essence Gods??? NO so what is the meaning of the verse? Are you going to say that the scriptural authors themselves speak out of both sides of their mouths too?? Moses was called a god. Is he???What does even the Watchtower tell you???

[Topherlee]

Oldmonk
By your own logic then Michael , who you say is CHIEF of archangels , is Chief of ONE... HIMSELF?!?!REALLY!!!! Lets use some elementry LOGIC.!! To be chief of something implies you are not the ONLY ONE!!! By the way the scriptures DO say that Michael is not the only one!!
Daniel 10:13But the prince of the Persian kingdom resisted me twenty-one days. Then Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, because I was detained there with the king of Persia.

Your disbelief in Michael being Jesus is because of your belief that Jesus is God himself. There are quite a few verses that make Jesus and Michael very identical. You cannot see this unless you reexamine scripture. Are these verses here by mistake? Are they coincidental? It is up to you to determine.
And I agree with you on one topic, Michael is listed as "one of the chief princes". So there could be more archangels than one; just because Michael is the only archangel listed doesn't mean he is the only one. But as the firstborn (chosen)(Col 1:15), he is the "bright morning star" (Rev 22:16), Jesus identifies himself as such. In the book of Job 38:7 it says "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Apparently the morning stars are over the sons of God (angels).

You must also realize that a theophany ( that is an appearance of God on Earth) would look much the same as an angel to us. The Hebrew writers called these apperances as angelic because that was their perspective ... not God's. Angels are ALL created according to any Rabbi. And I know of at least 3 arch angels that the Jewish people believe to exist. Raphael being the one they say is in charge of watching over the nation of Israel. And if you knew your scriptures you would know that angel means messenger, thus I could be an angel to you. The DIFFERENCE if you followed what I was saying about the Angel of the LORD is this; Though to us he would SEEM to be an angel his essence is not angelic but DIVINE as my post CLEARLY indicated. Even the scriptures say that WE are Gods!!! Are we in essence Gods??? NO so what is the meaning of the verse? Are you going to say that the scriptural authors themselves speak out of both sides of their mouths too?? Moses was called a god. Is he???What does even the Watchtower tell you???

To your assertion that they were not angels that appeared to men is that there are no angels; this is what I hear you saying. In the book of Daniel chapter 10, the one Daniel is describing is widely accepted to be the angel Gabriel. Angels appeared to many in the bible. Are you saying that they were all God himself?
The prophet Muhammad is said to have been visited by Gabriel and Micahel;
Once upon a time, Gabriel and Michael visited the prophet Muhammad. The latter had a toothstick in hand which he immediately handed to Gabriel, the angel who constantly brought him revelations. Gabriel said: "O Muhammad! give it to the elder angel." The Prophet gave it to Michael.
Notice how Michael is said to be the elder of the two. And actually it is Michael who is said to be the "prince of Israel".

Yes, you could be considered an angel - messenger. Yes, you can be considered a god. Satan considers himself a god. The keyword is considered. Not knowing the basic principle of scripture is not knowing that among many gods (false), many who will call themselves or be considered gods; among many that will be called saviours (we call them heroes today) and as many that you will salute, prostate yourself before (kings, queens, and presidents), there is ONE TRUE GOD and Jehovah is his name.

[Krusader]

Your disbelief in Michael being Jesus is because of your belief that Jesus is God himself. There are quite a few verses that make Jesus and Michael very identical. You cannot see this unless you reexamine scripture. Are these verses here by mistake? Are they coincidental? It is up to you to determine.
And I agree with you on one topic, Michael is listed as "one of the chief princes". So there could be more archangels than one; just because Michael is the only archangel listed doesn't mean he is the only one. But as the firstborn (chosen)(Col 1:15), he is the "bright morning star" (Rev 22:16), Jesus identifies himself as such. In the book of Job 38:7 it says "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Apparently the morning stars are over the sons of God (angels).



To your assertion that they were not angels that appeared to men is that there are no angels; this is what I hear you saying. In the book of Daniel chapter 10, the one Daniel is describing is widely accepted to be the angel Gabriel. Angels appeared to many in the bible. Are you saying that they were all God himself?
The prophet Muhammad is said to have been visited by Gabriel and Micahel;
Once upon a time, Gabriel and Michael visited the prophet Muhammad. The latter had a toothstick in hand which he immediately handed to Gabriel, the angel who constantly brought him revelations. Gabriel said: "O Muhammad! give it to the elder angel." The Prophet gave it to Michael.
Notice how Michael is said to be the elder of the two. And actually it is Michael who is said to be the "prince of Israel".

Yes, you could be considered an angel - messenger. Yes, you can be considered a god. Satan considers himself a god. The keyword is considered. Not knowing the basic principle of scripture is not knowing that among many gods (false), many who will call themselves or be considered gods; among many that will be called saviours (we call them heroes today) and as many that you will salute, prostate yourself before (kings, queens, and presidents), there is ONE TRUE GOD and Jehovah is his name.

And what are these numerous verses that identify Jesus as the Archangel Michael? Please list them. Would a person not exposed to Watchtower indoctrination come away from reading the Bible understanding that Jesus is really the Archangel Michael. For instance, stranded on an island with only a copy of the American Standard Version of the Bible (which the Society used to print, by the way), would a person who read the New Testament come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Archangel Michael?

[Topherlee]

And what are these numerous verses that identify Jesus as the Archangel Michael? Please list them. Would a person not exposed to Watchtower indoctrination come away from reading the Bible understanding that Jesus is really the Archangel Michael. For instance, stranded on an island with only a copy of the American Standard Version of the Bible (which the Society used to print, by the way), would a person who read the New Testament come to the conclusion that Jesus is the Archangel Michael?

KJV 1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord (Jesus) himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Should I continue... Or do you consider this coincidental? Why would Jesus refer to himself as a morning star?
Would a person not exposed to the doctrine of the Trinity understand that the One True God is a triune god from the ASV translation? How many is one to you? Deut 6:4 speaks nothing of essence.

[JAY-PC]

KJV 1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord (Jesus) himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Should I continue... Or do you consider this coincidental? Why would Jesus refer to himself as a morning star?
Would a person not exposed to the doctrine of the Trinity understand that the One True God is a triune god from the ASV translation? How many is one to you? Deut 6:4 speaks nothing of essence.



It could be that there are three things going on here.
1) the Lord shouts a command
2) An archagel's voice is heard
3) God's trumpet is heard.


1 Thessalonians 4:16 The Lord himself, with a shouted command, at the voice of the archangel and at the sound of God's trumpet, will come down from heaven, and the dead ones in Christ will arise first.

The passage is not clear if the Lord's voice is described as the voice of an archangel or if the archangel is another person whos voice is heard after the Lord shouts his command.

[Topherlee]

It could be that there are three things going on here.
1) the Lord shouts a command
2) An archagel's voice is heard
3) God's trumpet is heard.


1 Thessalonians 4:16 The Lord himself, with a shouted command, at the voice of the archangel and at the sound of God's trumpet, will come down from heaven, and the dead ones in Christ will arise first.

The passage is not clear if the Lord's voice is described as the voice of an archangel or if the archangel is another person whos voice is heard after the Lord shouts his command.

KJV 1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord (Jesus) himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Who shouts for the dead to rise? Jesus.

John 11 we read about Jesus at the tomb of Lazarus. All of a sudden, Jesus raised his voice and commanded, "Lazarus, come forth!" and the dead man came out.

John 10:4 And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
John 10:7 Then said Jesus unto them again, Verily, verily, I say unto you, I am the door of the sheep.

KJV Col 1:15
Who is the image (Michael - who is like God) of the invisible God, the firstborn (chosen) of every creature:

Who named the angels? Who named Christ?

[Sparko]

KJV 1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord (Jesus) himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

So if "with" means that he "is" the archangel, then "with" also means he is a trumpet.

[Topherlee]

So if "with" means that he "is" the archangel, then "with" also means he is a trumpet.

No silly, the trumpet is not a person. But don't tell that is all you've read.

[Sparko]

No silly, the trumpet is not a person. But don't tell that is all you've read.

You can't have it both ways, topher. "the voice" isn't a person either. If "with"
"the voice" of the archangel means he is the archangel, then "with" the trump of God must mean he is God. Or a trumpet.

Get it? If "voice" belongs to "archangel" and "archangel" is Jesus, then "trump" belongs to "God" and Jesus is "God."

the grammatical structure is identical in both phrases.

Or "with" could just mean he is "accompanied by" the voice of the archangel and the trump of God.

[JAY-PC]

Just tell me were it says Jesus is Michael, or were our prayers are in the name of Michael or were it says Jesus is an angel. I know in Hebrews Jesus is compare to the angels and he is said to be better and higher than the angels.

[alam]

Just tell me were it says Jesus is Michael, or were our prayers are in the name of Michael or were it says Jesus is an angel. I know in Hebrews Jesus is compare to the angels and he is said to be better and higher than the angels.According to 1 Enoch, among other sources, Michael is one of seven chief angels or sarei hammal'akhim. This is extra-biblical but is not necessarily unbiblical. It may reflect the view of the NT authors. Of the two who mention Michael, Jude actually quotes Enoch (vv. 14-15). John introduces the seven angels without explanation; they are simply assumed: "I saw the seven angels that stand before God" (Rev. 8:2; 15:6 ff.; cf. Tobit 12:15).

John shares the apocalyptic angelology right down to his depiction of elemental angels, of wind, of water, Rev. 7:1; 16:5. In the absence of contrary evidence, this shared milieu suggests to me the likelihood that he also ranked Michael among the seven angels, an otherwise unanimous view. From 1 Enoch:

And these are the names of the holy angels who watch. Uriel, one of the holy angels, who is over the world and over Tartarus. Raphael, one of the holy angels, who is over the spirits of men. Raguel, one of the holy angels who takes vengeance on the world of the luminaries. Michael, one of the holy angels, to wit, he that is set over the best part of mankind and over chaos. Saraqael, one of the holy angels, who is set over the spirits, who sin in the spirit. Gabriel, one of the holy angels, who is over Paradise and the serpents [=Seraphim ?] and the Cherubim. Remiel, one of the holy angels, whom God set over those who rise [cf. 4 Ezra 4.33-37] (1 Enoch 20.1-8, Charles).

The Shepherd of Hermas 3.9.12 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0201309.htm) describes the Son of God being accompanied by six archangels. On this basis, some conclude that for Hermas, the Son himself stands in the role of the seventh. This is certainly interesting, but, imo, is outweighed by the difficulty in identifying Christ with one of the seven angels as described in Revelation. If he is one of the seven, then who is the "other mighty angel" in chapter 10, of the most stupendous description of any in scripture? This angel too has traditionally been identified with the Logos (Victorinus Commentary on the Apocalypse x (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm)). God bless,

[JAY-PC]

According to 1 Enoch, among other sources, Michael is one of seven chief angels or sarei hammal'akhim. This is extra-biblical but is not necessarily unbiblical. It may reflect the view of the NT authors. Of the two who mention Michael, Jude actually quotes Enoch (vv. 14-15). John introduces the seven angels without explanation; they are simply assumed: "I saw the seven angels that stand before God" (Rev. 8:2; 15:6 ff.; cf. Tobit 12:15).

John shares the apocalyptic angelology right down to his depiction of elemental angels, of wind, of water, Rev. 7:1; 16:5. In the absence of contrary evidence, this shared milieu suggests to me the likelihood that he also ranked Michael among the seven angels, an otherwise unanimous view. From 1 Enoch:

And these are the names of the holy angels who watch. Uriel, one of the holy angels, who is over the world and over Tartarus. Raphael, one of the holy angels, who is over the spirits of men. Raguel, one of the holy angels who takes vengeance on the world of the luminaries. Michael, one of the holy angels, to wit, he that is set over the best part of mankind and over chaos. Saraqael, one of the holy angels, who is set over the spirits, who sin in the spirit. Gabriel, one of the holy angels, who is over Paradise and the serpents [=Seraphim ?] and the Cherubim. Remiel, one of the holy angels, whom God set over those who rise [cf. 4 Ezra 4.33-37] (1 Enoch 20.1-8, Charles).

The Shepherd of Hermas 3.9.12 (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0201309.htm) describes the Son of God being accompanied by six archangels. On this basis, some conclude that for Hermas, the Son himself stands in the role of the seventh. This is certainly interesting, but, imo, is outweighed by the difficulty in identifying Christ with one of the seven angels as described in Revelation. If he is one of the seven, then who is the "other mighty angel" in chapter 10, of the most stupendous description of any in scripture? This angel too has traditionally been identified with the Logos (Victorinus Commentary on the Apocalypse x (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0712.htm)). God bless,


Thanks for the info.

I can find no reference in the Bible to Jesus being an angel or the archangel Michael.

So why do people go through all this trouble to make Jesus Michael?

I see that Jesus is called Lord and God in John 20:28 but JW’s don’t want Jesus to be God they rather come up with anything else like saying Jesus is Michael.

I want Book, chapter, and verse were it says Jesus is Michael if it can’t be found then this is an unbiblical doctrine and should be dropped.

[Topherlee]

You can't have it both ways, topher. "the voice" isn't a person either. If "with"
"the voice" of the archangel means he is the archangel, then "with" the trump of God must mean he is God. Or a trumpet.

Get it? If "voice" belongs to "archangel" and "archangel" is Jesus, then "trump" belongs to "God" and Jesus is "God."

the grammatical structure is identical in both phrases.

Or "with" could just mean he is "accompanied by" the voice of the archangel and the trump of God.

The trumpet of God is not necessarily God blowing the trumpet, but of the selected angels that they were given to: Rev 8:2 And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets.

[Topherlee]

Thanks for the info.

I can find no reference in the Bible to Jesus being an angel or the archangel Michael.

So why do people go through all this trouble to make Jesus Michael?

I see that Jesus is called Lord and God in John 20:28 but JW’s don’t want Jesus to be God they rather come up with anything else like saying Jesus is Michael.

I want Book, chapter, and verse were it says Jesus is Michael if it can’t be found then this is an unbiblical doctrine and should be dropped.

Give me one verse where it says that God is a triune god; where the word Trinity appears. You cannot be hypocritical. Show me where it says God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. To my recollection, the Father is known as God.

[Sparko]

The trumpet of God is not necessarily God blowing the trumpet, but of the selected angels that they were given to: Rev 8:2 And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets.

Nice sidestep topherlee, but you completely missed the point. You originally said that the grammer of the sentence that said that Jesus was coming with the voice of the archangel meant that he WAS the archangel. I was pointing out that the grammar of the phrase that he is coming with the trump of God is exactly the same. So if the grammar in the first phrase means that Jesus is the archangel then the second phrase means Jesus is God. Which would be a contradiction, he cant be both an archangel and God can he? Which means that your forcing of the grammar in the first phrase is wrong.

In both phrases "with" means that Jesus's coming will be ACCOMPANIED by the archangel's voice and God's trump.

[Topherlee]

Nice sidestep topherlee, but you completely missed the point. You originally said that the grammer of the sentence that said that Jesus was coming with the voice of the archangel meant that he WAS the archangel. I was pointing out that the grammar of the phrase that he is coming with the trump of God is exactly the same. So if the grammar in the first phrase means that Jesus is the archangel then the second phrase means Jesus is God. Which would be a contradiction, he cant be both an archangel and God can he? Which means that your forcing of the grammar in the first phrase is wrong.

In both phrases "with" means that Jesus's coming will be ACCOMPANIED by the archangel's voice and God's trump.

Whether it is forced or not, it is not God that will toot his own horn. All things are from God, I have clearly shown that the trumpets are given to the angels.

And, if you want to be grammatically correct, a father is one who creates, generates, produces life. A son is one who has been created, generated, produced by the father. God has always existed, but not as a Father, this required a creation. Basic, practical terminology. Is this grammatically sound?

[Sparko]

Whether it is forced or not, it is not God that will toot his own horn. All things are from God, I have clearly shown that the trumpets are given to the angels.

And, if you want to be grammatically correct, a father is one who creates, generates, produces life. A son is one who has been created, generated, produced by the father. God has always existed, but not as a Father, this required a creation. Basic, practical terminology. Is this grammatically sound?

Again, stop sidestepping and trying to change the subject. You always do that. You toss out some inane comment thinking that answers the question about doctrine and when someone points out that you don't have a clue, you switch topics.

The topic currently is "Is Jesus Michael the archangel?" and you tried to used 1 Thess to prove that he was. I pointed out that your exegesis was faulty and you try to change the subject.

I guess that means you admit you were wrong? You have made no attempt to defend your statement so I assume that means you admit you have no case?

Thanks.

[Topherlee]

Again, stop sidestepping and trying to change the subject. You always do that. You toss out some inane comment thinking that answers the question about doctrine and when someone points out that you don't have a clue, you switch topics.

The topic currently is "Is Jesus Michael the archangel?" and you tried to used 1 Thess to prove that he was. I pointed out that your exegesis was faulty and you try to change the subject.

I guess that means you admit you were wrong? You have made no attempt to defend your statement so I assume that means you admit you have no case?

Thanks.
I am not side stepping, you just fail to understand. I listed things pertaining to Jesus in bold and you are worried about grammar(side step).
KJV 1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord (Jesus) himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
I show you scripture where it says that the angels are handed the trumpets to proclaim the beginning;
Rev 8:2 And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets.

Who is responsible for calling the dead out of Sheol?
Who shouts for the dead to rise in the Christ?
Who shouted when Lazarus was called from the tomb?
Whose voice will be the door of the sheep?
Who is the image of God? Col 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God (Michael - who is like God), the firstborn (chosen, first created) of every creature:

Even the devils refer to him as the Holy One of God and not God himself? Are you saying you know more than the devils?
Matt 1:24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
Matt 1:34 And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.

Explain how this exegesis is faulty?

[Sparko]

I am not side stepping, you just fail to understand. I listed things pertaining to Jesus in bold and you are worried about grammar(side step).
KJV 1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord (Jesus) himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
I show you scripture where it says that the angels are handed the trumpets to proclaim the beginning;
Rev 8:2 And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets.

Who is responsible for calling the dead out of Sheol?
Who shouts for the dead to rise in the Christ?
Who shouted when Lazarus was called from the tomb?
Whose voice will be the door of the sheep?
Who is the image of God? Col 1:15
Who is the image of the invisible God (Michael - who is like God), the firstborn (chosen, first created) of every creature:

Even the devils refer to him as the Holy One of God and not God himself? Are you saying you know more than the devils?
Matt 1:24 Saying, Let us alone; what have we to do with thee, thou Jesus of Nazareth? art thou come to destroy us? I know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God.
Matt 1:34 And he healed many that were sick of divers diseases, and cast out many devils; and suffered not the devils to speak, because they knew him.

Explain how this exegesis is faulty?

LOL, it is faulty because not one bit of it has anything to do with the verse you quoted to support your claim that michael is Jesus. Instead you just quote more rationalizations and faulty exegesis to support your previous mistake. It's horrible scholarship, topherlee. It is no more than eisogeses. You are reading back your ideas INTO the text and coming up with rationalizations to support that.

completely circular reasoning on your part.

[Topherlee]

LOL, it is faulty because not one bit of it has anything to do with the verse you quoted to support your claim that michael is Jesus. Instead you just quote more rationalizations and faulty exegesis to support your previous mistake. It's horrible scholarship, topherlee. It is no more than eisogeses. You are reading back your ideas INTO the text and coming up with rationalizations to support that.

completely circular reasoning on your part.

I show you scripture to support a verse and you say it is irrelevant;
Matthew 25:3 They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Lineage;
Revelations 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star.

Matthew 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up (rule as king), the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Who will rule as king for a thousand years? You have become wise above these means... You obtain the scholarship of man.

[Sparko]

I show you scripture to support a verse and you say it is irrelevant;
Matthew 25:3 They that were foolish took their lamps, and took no oil with them:

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.
38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?
38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;
38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?
Lineage;
Revelations 22:16 I Jesus have sent mine angel to testify unto you these things in the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, and the bright morning star.

Matthew 13:13 Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
13:14 And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:

Daniel 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up (rule as king), the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Who will rule as king for a thousand years? You have become wise above these means... You obtain the scholarship of man.

again, we are talking about your use of 1 Thess to support that Jesus is Michael. You still have not backed up your claims there, nor admitted you were wrong (which you are) -- Why are you trying to change to discuss about Daniel now? If I start up with Daniel and show you are wrong there will you just run to another verse and start over? Why can't you stick to one discussion and finish it first instead of running down a rabbit trail of eisogesis?

I guess if that is the game you want to play, I can do the same thing.

Here I go...

If Michael is Jesus then why are they differentiated in Jude 1:9? Jesus is Lord so why would Michael not bring the accusation against the devil himself instead of saying "The Lord rebuke you" HMMM????

Jude 1:9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"

[JAY-PC]

Give me one verse where it says that God is a triune god; where the word Trinity appears. You cannot be hypocritical. Show me where it says God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. To my recollection, the Father is known as God.


We are not talking about the Trinity but I will show you were Jese is called God.

John 1:18 ESV
(18) No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

John 20:27-29 ESV
(27) Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe."
(28) Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"
(29) Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."


Are these to your liking? They say Jesus is God. Now if you would be so kind and find the scriptures that say “Jesus who is the archangel” or “Jesus who in said to be Michael” or “Michael is Jesus” or any scripture that states it.

Give up there is no such passage. You may be able to link a few scriptures together, taking them out of their context and then interpret them to mean what you want but I challenge you to find the passage that states it.

I show you two were Jesus is called God and you show me ZERO that say Jesus is Michael.

Please be honest and say there is no scripture that states it.

[Oldmonk]

KJV 1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord (Jesus) himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
Should I continue... Or do you consider this coincidental? Why would Jesus refer to himself as a morning star?
Would a person not exposed to the doctrine of the Trinity understand that the One True God is a triune god from the ASV translation? How many is one to you? Deut 6:4 speaks nothing of essence.


That is illogical!!! If I bark like a dog or moo like a cow does that of necessity make me a dog or cow then?!?NO!!!! I am STILL human!!! The voice doesn't show the essence of something !!! A Mima bird talking in English doesn't make him an ENGLISHMAN or we might see a whole flock of mima's in bowlers!! We MUST realize that a lot of the language used to discribe things in prophacy is both symbolic and discriptive rather than narative... that is that all the verse in 1 Thessalonians 4:16 is probably saying is that the voice will be heard everywhere and have power and authority to it. I am sure if we actually heard a shout from an Arch Angel we would tend to hear it and obey it if we valued our lives. This verse also shows the WT and the SDA's wrong in regards to the dead. NOTE that He (Jesus ) COMES WITH the dead and also comes FOR the dead!!!

[Oldmonk]

To your assertion that they were not angels that appeared to men is that there are no angels; this is what I hear you saying. In the book of Daniel chapter 10, the one Daniel is describing is widely accepted to be the angel Gabriel. Angels appeared to many in the bible. Are you saying that they were all God himself?
The prophet Muhammad is said to have been visited by Gabriel and Micahel;
Once upon a time, Gabriel and Michael visited the prophet Muhammad. The latter had a toothstick in hand which he immediately handed to Gabriel, the angel who constantly brought him revelations. Gabriel said: "O Muhammad! give it to the elder angel." The Prophet gave it to Michael.
Notice how Michael is said to be the elder of the two. And actually it is Michael who is said to be the "prince of Israel".


That is NOT my assertion. I am distinguishing the "Angel of the LORD" from other angels. You can speak of all ordinary angels in the plural ...and the bible does this.... HOWEVER when it comes to the Angel of the LORD He is always refered to as SINGULAR. Also note that Jacob calls God Himself an "angel" in Genesis 48:16. This is NOT to say that God is an actual angel is it?!? NO!!! God may appear to be an angel to us... we tend to think of any heavenly being to be an angel. I also mentioned that the Hebrew word for angel denotes "Messenger" thus angels are messangers.I could be a messenger as well ..just not one that originates in heaven:) I hope that you agree and that this shows you what I was getting at in my post.

[Oldmonk]

Thanks for the info.

I can find no reference in the Bible to Jesus being an angel or the archangel Michael.

So why do people go through all this trouble to make Jesus Michael?

I see that Jesus is called Lord and God in John 20:28 but JW’s don’t want Jesus to be God they rather come up with anything else like saying Jesus is Michael.

I want Book, chapter, and verse were it says Jesus is Michael if it can’t be found then this is an unbiblical doctrine and should be dropped.


This doctrine is not of the making of the Jehovah's Witnesses but the Seventh Day Adventists who were also Arian in their thinking at the first.

[Topherlee]

Sparko
again, we are talking about your use of 1 Thess to support that Jesus is Michael. You still have not backed up your claims there, nor admitted you were wrong (which you are) -- Why are you trying to change to discuss about Daniel now? If I start up with Daniel and show you are wrong there will you just run to another verse and start over? Why can't you stick to one discussion and finish it first instead of running down a rabbit trail of eisogesis?

I'll slow down for you;
1 Thes 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

The shout and the voice are of Michael - Jesus who calls the dead to rise as only the Christ has been given this authority. The trumpet of GOd suggest that Michael was given the trumpet, not that it was God that was blowing the trumpet. Who are the trumpets given to? Rev 8:2 And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets.

I guess if that is the game you want to play, I can do the same thing.

Here I go...

If Michael is Jesus then why are they differentiated in Jude 1:9? Jesus is Lord so why would Michael not bring the accusation against the devil himself instead of saying "The Lord rebuke you" HMMM????

Jude 1:9 But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!"


I'll answer this with a question so you can learn this for yourself. When was Christ given the authority to act in God's name?

[Topherlee]

JAY-PC We are not talking about the Trinity but I will show you were Jese is called God.

John 1:18 ESV
(18) No one has ever seen God; the only God, who is at the Father's side, he has made him known.

No, he is not being called God here; Jesus declares his Father and has made him known to many. After all he is the Rev 3:14 ...the faithful and true witness.... A witness to whom? John 20:17 ...(Jesus says) my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. How is that God can have a God when there is only One?

John 20:27-29 ESV
(27) Then he said to Thomas, "Put your finger here, and see my hands; and put out your hand, and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe."
(28) Thomas answered him, "My Lord and my God!"
(29) Jesus said to him, "Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

Put yourself in the time and place and position of the "doubting Thomas". He doubted the resurrection of Christ and was amazed at his appearance. In the same unabbreviated voice he recognized both Jesus and Jehovah God his Father.
Keep reading John 20:31 But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing ye might have life through his name.

Are these to your liking? They say Jesus is God. Now if you would be so kind and find the scriptures that say “Jesus who is the archangel” or “Jesus who in said to be Michael” or “Michael is Jesus” or any scripture that states it.

Give up there is no such passage. You may be able to link a few scriptures together, taking them out of their context and then interpret them to mean what you want but I challenge you to find the passage that states it.

I show you two were Jesus is called God and you show me ZERO that say Jesus is Michael.

Please be honest and say there is no scripture that states it.

Go back a few pages on this thread and let me know what you find. It won't take long.

[Sparko]

I'll slow down for you;
1 Thes 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

The shout and the voice are of Michael - Jesus who calls the dead to rise as only the Christ has been given this authority. The trumpet of GOd suggest that Michael was given the trumpet, not that it was God that was blowing the trumpet. Who are the trumpets given to? Rev 8:2 And I saw the seven angels which stood before God; and to them were given seven trumpets.


LOL. So NOW you head back to the 1 thes 4 verse? But instead of actually arguing against what I said, you simply repeat your assertian. So I guess we come full circle. Instead of running around in circles, you need to sit down and actually READ the bible.

Again:

If "with the voice of the archangel" means that he IS the archangel, then "with the trump of God" means he is GOD. The grammatical structure is the same in both verses.

Why do you think "with the voice of the archangel" means that Jesus is the archangel? Why can't it mean that he is accompanied by the voice of Michael who is announcing his coming, just like the trump of God announces his coming? If you try to argue that the sentence structure demands it be so, then the sentence structure demands that he is God.

Do you see that?




I'll answer this with a question so you can learn this for yourself. When was Christ given the authority to act in God's name?

John 1:1 IN THE BEGINNING

And in John 1:3 - If Christ created everything then that pretty much means he acted by God's authority. In fact it means he IS God.

[apostoli]

Hi Oldmonk,

This doctrine is not of the making of the Jehovah's Witnesses but the Seventh Day Adventists who were also Arian in their thinking at the first.Looking at your posts, it seems you know that, the doctrine goes back to the early church. Many mainstream writers acknowledged Jesus, as the angel of the Lord, and identified him with Michael. Novatian (3rd century) in his pro "Treatise on the Trinity" goes on for many pages about Jesus as being seen as an angel and yet was the Son God - "how much more so should he be called God".

I think it would be more proper to suggest that the "Michael" thing has only become an issue in recent times, since the JWs exploit his "angelness" and not his status as God over us.

[Oldmonk]

Hi Oldmonk,

Looking at your posts, it seems you know that, the doctrine goes back to the early church. Many mainstream writers acknowledged Jesus, as the angel of the Lord, and identified him with Michael. Novatian (3rd century) in his pro "Treatise on the Trinity" goes on for many pages about Jesus as being seen as an angel and yet was the Son God - "how much more so should he be called God".

I think it would be more proper to suggest that the "Michael" thing has only become an issue in recent times, since the JWs exploit his "angelness" and not his status as God over us.

Yes. We enevitably see any humanoid that has residence in heaven as an angel. Many teophanies in the Old Testament are refered to as angels but when something happens beyond those things supposed of angels we see them realize that it was really God they were talking to. Look at the verses pertaining to the birth of Samson in Judges 13. The Angel of the LORD appears... and in the end they are surprised they are still alive! WHY??? Because they believed they had seen GOD! This view is never said to be in error...ie. the relator of the story doesn't say ..."but of course they were wrong" When Jacob wrestled with the angel... we learn later on in the minor prophets that he prevailed against GOD. So you see angel has become the generic name for those beings that come out of heaven even if by nature they are not angels.

[Topherlee]

Sparko
LOL. So NOW you head back to the 1 thes 4 verse? But instead of actually arguing against what I said, you simply repeat your assertian. So I guess we come full circle. Instead of running around in circles, you need to sit down and actually READ the bible.

Again:

If "with the voice of the archangel" means that he IS the archangel, then "with the trump of God" means he is GOD. The grammatical structure is the same in both verses.

Why do you think "with the voice of the archangel" means that Jesus is the archangel? Why can't it mean that he is accompanied by the voice of Michael who is announcing his coming, just like the trump of God announces his coming? If you try to argue that the sentence structure demands it be so, then the sentence structure demands that he is God.

Do you see that?

Again, you point out grammar. Your a typical case of copy and paste and that is all you will ever see.

John 1:1 IN THE BEGINNING

And in John 1:3 - If Christ created everything then that pretty much means he acted by God's authority. In fact it means he IS God.

Christ is given the authority and therefore cannot be God, but can be considered to act in God's place. But Christ is not the one true God Jehovah. Christ is his Son.
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

[Sparko]

Again, you point out grammar. Your a typical case of copy and paste and that is all you will ever see.



Christ is given the authority and therefore cannot be God, but can be considered to act in God's place. But Christ is not the one true God Jehovah. Christ is his Son.
Matthew 28:18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.

1. Jesus is a distinct person but the same God in the Trinity. So the FATHER can give him the Authority.

2. If Jesus is not the one true God, then that must mean he is a FALSE God, eh? There can't be two true Gods can there? And John 1:1 says he is God (or "a" God according to you). Therefore if Jesus is a God and not the ONE true God, he must be a false God. That's where your theology takes you.

[NonTrinitarian]

1. Jesus is a distinct person but the same God in the Trinity. So the FATHER can give him the Authority.

2. If Jesus is not the one true God, then that must mean he is a FALSE God, eh? There can't be two true Gods can there? And John 1:1 says he is God (or "a" God according to you). Therefore if Jesus is a God and not the ONE true God, he must be a false God. That's where your theology takes you.

And Topherlee,
Moses is also a false god. So is solomon and the angels. Thankfully soon Jesus will return and punish all of them.

[Krusader]

And Topherlee,
Moses is also a false god. So is solomon and the angels. Thankfully soon Jesus will return and punish all of them.

So, then you disagree with the WT teaching that Jesus returned in 1914 invisibly?

[Topherlee]

So, then you disagree with the WT teaching that Jesus returned in 1914 invisibly?

Why do you go back in time? If you want to go back in time, pull up the history of the Trinity. It is not a biblical teaching. It is a result of Roman politics and power and it's collaborated with pagan rituals. There is historical evidence on this.
When was Christianity adopted by Rome?
Who crucified Jesus?
Who crucified Peter?
"Babylon is the symbolic name for Rome" and that "Rome" is the "type of any place where evil is supreme." (Jerusalem Bible, commentary to Rev. 17)

Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.

[Oldmonk]

Why do you go back in time? If you want to go back in time, pull up the history of the Trinity. It is not a biblical teaching. It is a result of Roman politics and power and it's collaborated with pagan rituals. There is historical evidence on this.
When was Christianity adopted by Rome?
Who crucified Jesus?
Who crucified Peter?
"Babylon is the symbolic name for Rome" and that "Rome" is the "type of any place where evil is supreme." (Jerusalem Bible, commentary to Rev. 17)

Acts 20:29 For I know this, that after my departing shall grievous wolves enter in among you, not sparing the flock.
20:30 Also of your own selves shall men arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away disciples after them.



If you would care to ACTUALLY READ " The Two Babylons" ( Which by the way the Watchtower quotes!!!) You will find the author Alexander Hislop DEFENDING the TRINITY doctrine against what he precieved as the pagan MISREPRESENTATION of it by the Catholics... Mainly due to their trying to include Mary as a co-redemtress and co-redeemer... and thus justifying there reverance to her.I HAVE read the book and Alexander Hislop makes it CLEAR that that is his intent.

[NonTrinitarian]

So, then you disagree with the WT teaching that Jesus returned in 1914 invisibly?

I think you're confusing the uses of return. JW's frequently talk about Christ soon returning to destroy Satan's world. He was enthroned as King of God's Kingdom but he has not returned to bring about God's purpose for the Earth. That's why you here JW's say, "Come Lord Jesus."

[Krusader]

I think you're confusing the uses of return. JW's frequently talk about Christ soon returning to destroy Satan's world. He was enthroned as King of God's Kingdom but he has not returned to bring about God's purpose for the Earth. That's why you here JW's say, "Come Lord Jesus."

No, JWs believe that Christ's "return" happened in 1914, invisibly; I don't know what youR personal belief is, however if you look for any type of future return of Christ you are not in accord with the WT:

"Beginning in the late 1870s the Watchtower taught that 1874 was the beginning of Christ's INVISIBLE presence, 1878 was the date he began his invisible reign, 1881 was the last chance to be part of the "anointed" Class, and 1914 was the date of Armageddon and the FULL ESTABLISHMENT of God's Kingdom on earth. This the first of the Society's ever-changing position on the "gospel" and hence, their belief on how to gain salvation. When 1914 failed, the Watchtower pushed the date for Armageddon ahead to 1915, and when chance to be part of the "anointed" class, was quietly dropped.)

AND:

In 1946 The Watchtower Society published LET GOD BE TRUE. I quote the following statements from that book. "Christ Jesus came, not as a human, but as a glorious spirit creature" (page 185). "Some wrongfully expect a literal fulfillment of the symbolic statements of the Bible. Such hope to see the glorified Jesus coming seated on a white cloud where every human eye will see him . . . Since not earthly men have ever seen the Father . . . neither will they see the glorified Son." (page 186). "It does not mean that Christ is in the way or has promised to come, but that he has already arrived." (pages 187, 188).

AND:



The TRUTH THAT LEADS TO ETERNAL LIFE was published in 1968. On page 81 of this book we read, "So Christ's return does not mean that he returns as a man to live on earth. Rather, it means that he takes up his kingly rule toward the earth and that he resurrects his little flock' from the dead to their reward in the heavens."

[Oldmonk]

And yet when a Pagan receives aid from or speaks with someone who is living in Heaven, the Summerlands, or anywhere else beyond the Veil, it's considered necromancy? :hrm:

It is or it isn't, and it's allowed or it's not allowed. Giving a different name to the same practice just because it belongs to a different group doesn't change its status or rights.


Exactly why CRUSADER speaks against that practice. The JW'S are the ones that do it not Christians. As it says in Eccles. the dead have nothing more to do with our world. The only exceptions in this case is "possiably " Samuel who I believe God ALLOWED to talk to Saul through the witch at Endor , and of course Jesus Himself...having Godly preogative.