Why do these prominent Trinitarian scholars agree with Jehovah's Witnesses that Michael is Jesus?
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia:
“The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the “child” and the archangel in Rev. 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel” – vol. 3, p. 2048, Eerdmans Publishing, 1984 printing.
Protestant Reformer John Calvin said regarding "Michael" in its occurrence at Daniel 12:1:
"I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." - J. Calvin, Commentaries On The Book Of The Prophet Daniel, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.
- TeeMLv 72 years agoFavorite Answer
Edit to David:
The Organization never claimed that this scholar 'endorsed' the NWT. I never claimed the scholar 'endorsed' the NWT.
The publications stated according to the rules of Greek grammar as taught by this scholar, John 1:1 should be translated 'and the Word was a god'.
Rules of grammar don't change because of personal beliefs.
But being afraid of losing one's standing by agreeing with Jehovah's Witnesses, is a reality.
Personally, I believe that today's trinitarian ministers are afraid to 'agree' with anything Jehovah's Witnesses teach.
One well known scholar, after being quoted from his book on Greek grammar, in a letter to the organization, basically denied his own book.
Prior to 1950, and the release of the NWT, Jehovah name was used and taught. After the NWT was release, trinitarian scholars started to reject Jehovah's name.
So today's prominent trinitarian scholars, deny what their predecessors taught, so as not to give the impression: Jehovah's Witnesses are correct today.
- RebmilcLv 42 years ago
I do have to smile at the underhand tactics that the JWs employ in an attempt to prop up their erroneous theology. The above question is a classic example that proves nothing whatsoever. For instance, they quote ‘The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia’ (ISBE), where it states “The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the pre-incarnate Christ”.
So what! not all by any means, consider the ‘Jamieson-fausset-Brown bible commentary’ which states
“Michael—the guardian angel of Israel ("thy people"), (Da 10:13). The transactions on earth affecting God's people have their correspondences in heaven, in the conflict between good and bad angels; so at the last great contest on earth which shall decide the ascendency of Christianity (Re 12:7-10). An archangel, NOT THE LORD JESUS; for he is distinguished from "the Lord" in Jude 9”.
Another point is that the 5 man editing team of the (ISBE) were also authors of “The Fundamentals : A testimony to the truth” 90 essays written to defend orthodox Protestant beliefs, which in the early 1900’s were under attack by higher criticism, liberal theology, socialism, Modernism, atheism, Christian Science, Mormonism, Millennial Dawn (whose members were sometimes known as Russellites, but which later adopted the official title of Jehovah's Witnesses), Spiritualism, and evolutionism. It is widely considered that these essays were to be the foundation of modern Christian fundamentalism. They are still available and clearly show that the authors didn’t subscribe to the Jesus is Michael view. They were just pointing out in the (ISBE) that some early protestant scholars believed that.
They then quote Calvin’s ‘commentaries on the Book of the prophet Daniel’
Give me a break guys this was written 450 years ago. It proves nothing, Calvin believed that, again I say so what! He was wrong.
The Watchtower changes it doctrine so frequently, they had to come up with a doctrine to justify it. These changes are called “New Light.” According to the JWs what is taught in their current magazine is the truth, which means that if it differs from what was taught last month then that wasn’t the truth, and I expect they all wait with baited breath to see what truth will be taught next month, which contradicts this month’s teaching.
The reason that I am pointing this out is that it’s ok for them to change what they were formerly taught on a week to week basis, but so-called ‘trinitarians’ cannot disagree with what a ‘scholar’ taught 450 yrs ago.
Why not consider some of the more modern teachings on the subject such as:
- OPsaltisLv 72 years ago
Along with much of Protestantism's teaching, the early leaders of it went horribly wrong. They tried to rely on human reasoning, and not on the revelation of Jesus to his disciples and his church.
- Anonymous2 years ago
It is very possible that Michael was the person that became Jesus this is absolutely no importance as far as salvation is concerned it's an interesting thing to know but Jehovah's Witnesses fully believe that there is no name given unto Men by which we may be saved except the name of Jesus. So what if Jesus Christ was called Michael when he was in heaven that's not our concern our concern is what he's called now his name is Jesus now and that's what we're supposed to go by
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- A Yahoo UserLv 72 years ago
It seems that your reading comprehension is not sufficient to the task that you have set yourself.
But perhaps not. Perhaps it's a simple application of the logical "fallacy of equivocation".
You assume that "Michael" must always mean "the archangel known as Michael"...but of course that is definitely NOT the case in the Bible.
- crosseyedLv 62 years ago
the premise of your question is in error.
the teaching that jesus is michael is luciferian in origin.
calvin coined the term "great architect of the universe" which freemasons now use to describe their god. he taught that jesus is michael which freemasons teach to this day. in fact, you can identify luciferian teachings by this doctrine. google images of calvin and you can see him using luciferian hand signals just like freemasons of today - https://www.google.com/search?q=calvin+freemason&t...
sorry you cannot discern between a luciferian doctrine and a christian one. this is to be expected when you are deceived into calling luciferian doctrine "truth".
here is where i prove the jesus is mike doctrine is fully luciferian in origin by quoting luciferians using their own words. if it seems to match watchtower doctrine then it is time to wake up.
SATAN. The Scriptures use the word Satan quite often and tell us about his evil purpose and works. He is, as the word implies, the adversary of God. Satan is invariably associated with Lucifer. Most Christians accept the fact that Lucifer and Satan are one and the same supernatural being commonly referred to as the Devil. Those who have directed the Luciferian Conspiracy upon this earth have been very definite in pronouncing the doctrine that Lucifer is God, and Satan his “Prince of the World.” There is Scriptural support for the belief that there are five or more other worlds over which Lucifer placed “Princes,” and several others, in addition to claiming that Satan is the eldest son of God (Adonay), and the older brother of Jesus Christ, also claim that Jesus Christ is one and the same person as St. Michael the Archangel. They claim that when God decided to inhabit this earth Lucifer made Satan “Prince of this world.” This claim is confirmed partially by the Scriptures, which refer to Satan as Prince of this world. John 14:30,16:11, Eph. 2:2.
- bob7777Lv 72 years ago
Why, indeed. Unfortunately the many scholars who made mention of Michael being Jesus lived and taught prior to 1900 CE. Thus they are now dead. Even one very prominent evangelical theologian admitted Jesus and Michael are one and the same. But when pressed as to why he did not teach this he bluntly told us he would no longer have a following. Mentioning his name would cause a fire storm here so I won't.
Your question might have well been about Jesus teaching about the resurrection. Now virtually all the churches teach the immortal soul idea and no resurrection as taught in the Bible is needed. Instead they teach the body dies and the soul immediately goes to heaven. They refuse to acknowledge the original lie and liar is the lie of not dying. Read Jesus words about the father of the lie and the original lie for yourself. John 8:44 & Genesis 3:3-5 and compare to what God says at Ezekiel 18:4 & Ecclesiastes 7:1-12 and with the exact formation of a human at Genesis 2:7.
Why don't prominent trinity scholars teach the Bible? Simple... Money and power.Source(s): Holy Bible
- Old-unLv 62 years ago
Michael is described as an ''Archangel,'' see Jude 9, archangel means chief of the angels, the prefix arch means chief or principle. This coupled with the fact that ''archangel'' in the Holy Bible is only used in the singular, shows there is only one such angel and is identified as Michael.
- Anonymous2 years ago
Why anyone is obsessed about the trinity is beyond me.
- Anonymous2 years ago
Why do prominent DC scholars agree that Batman's Butler, Alfred, is actually the Joker?