Maamin:
I have gone through this thread from the first page and noticed the JWs calling Jesus as same as Archangel Michael is very wrong, the bible made it clear who Michael is; nothing but an Angel of the lord. Saying he is the only archangel is another daring claim which is likely not to be true.

There are about seven archangels known in christian science but the earliest reference to a system of seven archangels as a group appears to be in Enoch I (the Book of Enoch) which is not part of the Jewish Canon but is prevalent in the Judaic tradition, where they are named as Gabriel, Michael, Raphael, Uriel, Raguel, Remiel and Saraqael. While this book of Enoch today is non-canonical in most Christian Churches,well I am not sure, but it was explicitly quoted in the New Testament ( Jude 1:14-15) in reference to (book of Enoch 27:2-3) and by many of the early Church Fathers. The Ethiopian Orthodox Church to this day regards it to be canonical.

And I belief that there are as many archangels than the seven common ones mentioned, considering the 'Encyclopedia of Angels' that gives more detail of the nine angelic orders in which "Archangels" are second to the lowest rank. I feel this seven angels are the ones mentioned in Rev. 8:2-5
As they are closer to God's throne, tho! They were only referred to as 'angels' in that verse.

PastorOluT:


Smile, I was beginning to think the guy has issue with comprehension saying he doesn't get me after 2 explanations, only to realize now he is just dodging the above.

NB I just feel pity for some of them cos they are sincere but sincerely wrong.

JMAN05:


Oga, can you change if your position is wrong? If you cant, no need of discussing with you. So I need answer to that if you dont mind.

johnw74:


Will you go back and read the answer I gave you? instead of being a pharacee in confusing issues.
Because you are wrong and have no real answers, and don't believe the verses provided, you give them other meanings,
don't you?

JMAN05:


Goodday Maam,

Your point is respected, however, since this book is of doubtful authenticity by many Christians, it cant be a good point especially for us who doubt its authenticity.

If they could be more than ONE PRINCES how Micheal which supposed to be ONLY ARCHANGEL still be among the PRINCES?

Which one higher in rank Archangel or Chief prince?

If Archangel is higher than Chief prince, why would Micheal can be classified as ONE of the Chief princes again?

Which I believe, you don't even know that ARCH means Chief also:

Maamin:


But well it is certain that..Jude quoted the book of Enoch, I also like studying the apocryphal books, they contain some explanation of biblical exegeses. Is good to go out of the box.

I also believe that their are more Chief princes (archangels) than just one as you have insinuated.

johnw74:


I have already said to you that I'm not interested in discussing - hearing your beliefs, I already know them, and I know that they are false.
It's so hard for jw to just answer a question honestly,
instead jw doesn't answer, and comes back with other questions.

Maamin:





Thank you very much, I was about making that explanation Archangel also mean Chief prince...and for the fact that the verse Dan. 10:13 says "13 But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, [size=16pt]one of the chief princes[/size], came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia".. suggest that there is more than one archangel or cheif prince.

JMAN05:


In other words, heavenly princes are angels?

JMAN05:


You might be right sir, but you can also be wrong, I wont be definite. If you want us to discuss why I dont accept that book, you can form another thread. For now, use the accepted books to prove your point.

Peace!

Maamin:


Yes! Also known as terrestrial spirit.

JMAN05:


Ok sir, your wish is granted. When you are ready to discuss with open mind, we can talk.

I have personally decided to discuss with people who are open minded ALONE.

Anything short of that, count me out. Immediately i discover ones insincerity, I could decide to end it up. O if you cant change ur position, no discussion sir.

JMAN05:


Ok Sir, so whom do you think is the Prince mentioned at Dan 8:11, 25?

v. 11

It exalted itself even against the Prince of the army, and from him the constant feature was taken away, and the established place of his sanctuary was thrown down. 12 And an army was given over, together with the constant feature, because of transgression; and it kept throwing truth to the earth, and it acted and had success.


v. 25

And by his cunning he will use deception to succeed; and in his heart he will exalt himself; and during a time of security he will bring many to ruin. He will even stand up against the Prince of princes, but he will be broken without human hand.

Maamin:


If you read to the end of the chapter, the vision was interpreted..its not talking about angels.

johnw74:


What is between your ears? I stopped discussing your false beliefs with you days ago.



You ask that others have an open mind, yet jw rejects scriptures that show jw belief is false,
and that shows that your mind is closed,
isn't that right?



It's been made clear already that there is no discussion with you, because of jw insincerity.

jw think they are in charge
jw tell what to do, not ask
jw answer a question that they cannot answer with another question.

jw is quiet weak.

JMAN05:


who is it talking about? read it well sir. (check verse 10).

The final part didn't dismiss the application to heavenly prince. am yet to see how.

JMAN05:


Which prove did u give and I don't accept? remind me, but will u change if u see proof? I really want to know.

johnw74:

jw answer a question that they cannot answer with another question.

jmano5:

OK, but will u change if you see that your position is wrong sir?

Sir, will you change if you see your position was wrong?

will u change if u see proof?

johnw74:

I have already said to you that I'm not interested in discussing - hearing your beliefs, I already know them, and I know that they are false.

JMAN05:


Which prove did u give and I don't accept? remind me,

jmano5:

As for Hebrew 1:5, it isn't a good proof. one can say that the answer to the question is Jesus.

johnw74:


Here is just one.



God is clearly saying that the man Jesus that He begot is not an angel but God, God the Word.
jmano5 reject the scripture giving it other meaning.

Heb 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
Heb 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
Heb 1:3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;
Heb 1:4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.
Heb 1:5 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?
Heb 1:6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.
Heb 1:7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
Heb 1:8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, [size=14pt]O God[/size], is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

"For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son"
is the same as saying "I have never called an angel my Son"


jw takes the plain sense of scripture and change it to suit their false doctrines.

Christians take their doctrines from the plain sense of scripture.

johnw74:


There is something wrong with this person.
You have no proof.

I have already said to you that I'm not interested
in discussing - hearing your beliefs, I already
know them, and I know that they are false.

JMAN05:


i have given answer to that sir. but will u change if u see proof? Just give me answer to that question and i will add to what I ve said earlier about that Hebrews.

[size=14pt]Because if u are not sincere in this discussion,[/size] I won't discuss with u. thats my method now, u can't change that. are u willing to change sir?

JMAN05:



OK, but will u change if you see that your position is wrong sir?

Sir, will you change if you see your position was wrong?

will u change if u see proof?

but will u change if u see proof?

are u willing to change sir?

Because if u are not sincere in this discussion,

JMAN05:





OK sir, I personally have seen ur point, it is very wrong. But I believe if we can sincerely scrutinize each other's point, we shall know who is truly wrong. I just want to know if u are ready for whatever is the outcome of the discussion. An ready, are u? and will u give it an unbiased consideration? This is just what i want to know. and this time, let's do it calmly, no abuses or sarcasm.

You said u don't want a discussion, but am surprised to see u ve already filled the thread with ur posts. how then will I believe u?

just tell me whether u agree to the terms.

JMANO5:
OK, but will u change if you see that your position is wrong sir?

Sir, will you change if you see your position was wrong?

will u change if u see proof?

but will u change if u see proof?

are u willing to change sir?

johnw74:


You wont, jw is full of unbelief.



No I don't, and you will endure to mine, like it or not.
My terms are that once someone rejects the scriptures I consider them a lost cause and no longer try putting them straight.
I may at times however point out your wrongs for my pleasure and in hopefully helping someone else.

johnw74:

jw with false doctrines push and push and push them,
there is hardly a front door they haven't knocked on.

Christians will tell you a couple of times the Truth, then if you reject the Gospel,
they let you go your own way.

The devil is busy in these times, before the return of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

JMAN05:


That sound nice to me. what do u think?

But why do u reject the offer sir?

JMANO5:
OK, but will u change if you see that your position is wrong sir?

Sir, will you change if you see your position was wrong?

will u change if u see proof?

but will u change if u see proof?

are u willing to change sir?