JW's and the crucifixion

[IHeartAquinas]

I’ve always wondered WHY the JW’s believe that it was Michael the Archangel instead of Jesus on the cross? I understand it also has to do with their view of Jesus’ eternal relationship with the Father, something about Jesus being an uncreated being or some such.

My sister recently came back from the JW’s yearly national conference (she’s Catholic, but that side of my family is JW and she was visiting) and was visibly upset because of the way they refused to answer her questions. So I figured I would ask one of my biggest ones here. Any JW’s who want to chime in, I would appreciate it too.

 

[JeanneH]

I’ve always wondered WHY the JW’s believe that it was Michael the Archangel instead of Jesus on the cross? I understand it also has to do with their view of Jesus’ eternal relationship with the Father, something about Jesus being an uncreated being or some such.

My sister recently came back from the JW’s yearly national conference (she’s Catholic, but that side of my family is JW and she was visiting) and was visibly upset because of the way they refused to answer her questions. So I figured I would ask one of my biggest ones here. Any JW’s who want to chime in, I would appreciate it too.

The question is incorrect because JW’s do not believe that it was Michael on the cross .JW’s believe that God created the Word who became Jesus when he was born of Mary. Michael is another name for the Word and Jesus. When Jesus died on the cross he became a spirit and his name reverted back to Michael. Jesus can still be called by any of the above names i.e. the Word, Michael, Jesus.

Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God’s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return.
Dan.10:13, 20, 21, 12:1 EX. 23:20, 21, 23 32:34, 33:2, Jude 9 I Thes 4:16 Matt. 28:18 Rev. 17:14 Dan 10:13 Dan 11:40

The reason it could not have been Michael on the cross because Michael is a spirit creature and Jesus died in hes human body.

If your sister asked the question in the middle of the meeting they would not have answered her but would have asked her to repeat her question at the end of the meeting in private. If they didn’t know the answer they would tell her they would do research and get back to her.

A Witness would not have said cross they would have said stake.

This answer came for a JW who at this moment is sitting next to me as I type.

Jeanne

PS if your sister wants the reasoning behind the scriptures listed she can go to the Insights on the Scriptures Vol 2 page 393, 394 under Michael.

 

[IHeartAquinas]

Thanks for the info. For reference, this was not one of my sister’s questions, it was simply one of the big ones I’ve always wondered about. I obviously misunderstood what was being said when I originally came across it. Thanks again.

 

[Nicea325]

The question is incorrect because JW’s do not believe that it was Michael on the cross .JW’s believe that God created the Word who became Jesus when he was born of Mary. Michael is another name for the Word and Jesus. When Jesus died on the cross he became a spirit and his name reverted back to Michael. Jesus can still be called by any of the above names i.e. the Word, Michael, Jesus.

Scriptural evidence indicates that the name Michael applied to God’s Son before he left heaven to become Jesus Christ and also after his return.
Dan.10:13, 20, 21, 12:1 EX. 23:20, 21, 23 32:34, 33:2, Jude 9 I Thes 4:16 Matt. 28:18 Rev. 17:14 Dan 10:13 Dan 11:40

The reason it could not have been Michael on the cross because Michael is a spirit creature and Jesus died in hes human body.

If your sister asked the question in the middle of the meeting they would not have answered her but would have asked her to repeat her question at the end of the meeting in private. If they didn’t know the answer they would tell her they would do research and get back to her.

A Witness would not have said cross they would have said stake.

This answer came for a JW who at this moment is sitting next to me as I type.

Jeanne

PS if your sister wants the reasoning behind the scriptures listed she can go to the Insights on the Scriptures Vol 2 page 393, 394 under Michael.

Indeed but JW’s are well known to take scriptural verses out-of-context to defend their novel beliefs.

 

[Nicea325]

I’ve always wondered WHY the JW’s believe that it was Michael the Archangel instead of Jesus on the cross? I understand it also has to do with their view of Jesus’ eternal relationship with the Father, something about Jesus being an uncreated being or some such.

My sister recently came back from the JW’s yearly national conference (she’s Catholic, but that side of my family is JW and she was visiting) and was visibly upset because of the way they refused to answer her questions. So I figured I would ask one of my biggest ones here. Any JW’s who want to chime in, I would appreciate it too.

JWs’ believe Jesus was created,not begotten. Read their NWT Bible and they deliberately changed any references to people worshiping Jesus. My question to them is simple: If Jesus was the perfect creature and died for our sins,then how is it possible a ‘perfect’ ceature to saves us? Only God and God alone can save us,not creatures.

BTW: If Jesus is the angel Michael,then I am curious to know why other angels and humans would worship Jesus,when it is forbidden to worship creatures.

 

[Cranmer2010]

JWs’ believe Jesus was created,not begotten. Read their NWT Bible and they deliberately changed any references to people worshiping Jesus. My question to them is simple: If Jesus was the perfect creature and died for our sins,then how is it possible a ‘perfect’ ceature to saves us? Only God and God alone can save us,not creatures.

BTW: If Jesus is the angel Michael,then I am curious to know why other angels and humans would worship Jesus,when it is forbidden to worship creatures.

It is the same for their feeble attempts to explain away the Trinity. One would have to be totally oblivious to the Epistles of St. Paul to think that God wasn’t three persons, not to mention also the Baptism of Christ itself. It becomes rather futile and non-sensical for them to continue to try and explain it away.