Refuting Jehovah's Witness belief in Jesus as Michael the arch angel

[campeador]

Haydock’s Catholic Bible Commentary, 1859 edition:

GENESIS - Chapter 6

Ver. 2. The sons of God. The descendants of Seth and Enos are here called Sons of God, from their religion and piety: whereas the ungodly race of Cain, who by their carnal affections lay grovelling upon the earth, are called the children of men. The unhappy consequence of the former marrying with the latter, ought to be a warning to Christians to be very circumspect in their marriages; and not to suffer themselves to be determined in choice by their carnal passion, to the prejudice of virtue or religion. (Challoner) — See St. Chrysostom, hom. 22, &c. Some copies of the Septuagint having the angels of God, induced some of the ancients to suppose, that these spiritual beings (to whom, by another mistake, they attributed a sort of aerial bodies) had commerce with women, as the pagans derived their heroes from a mortal and a god. But this notion, which is borrowed from the book of Henoch, is quite exploded. (Calmet) — The distinction of the true Church from the synagogue of satan, here established, has been ever since retained, as heretics are still distinguished from Catholics. (Worthington) (St. Augustine)

JOB - Chapter 1

Ver. 6.* The sons of God.* The angels, (Challoner) as the Septuagint express it. (Calmet) — Satan also, &c. This passage represents to us in a figure, accommodated to the ways and understandings of men, 1. The restless endeavours of satan against the servants of God. 2. That he can do nothing without God’s permission. 3. That God doth not permit him to tempt them above their strength: but assists them by his divine grace in such manner, that the vain efforts of the enemy only serve to illustrate their virtue and increase their merit. (Challoner) — A similar prosopopeia occurs, 1 Kings 22:19, and Zacharias 1:10. (Calmet) — Devils appear not in God’s sight, but sometimes in presence of angels, who represent God. (St. Athanasius, q. 8. ad Antioc, (Worthington) or some ancient author.) — The good angels can make known their orders to them, Zacharias 3:1., and Jude 9. Both good and bad spirits may be considered as the ministers of God. (Calmet) — They appear in judgment; though the latter could not see the Lord.

 

[SteveVH]

One of the biggest things I’ve learned from debating with the JWs is that IT’S HARD TO CONVINCE OR TELL THEM THEY’RE WRONG. Especially when they are bending scripture to fit their belief. How can I convince them their bible (New World Translation) is wrong?

The following quote from Watchtower might give you a glimpse into the JW mindset that resulted in the “New World Translation”:

“However, during all our years of using these versions [of the Bible] down to the latest of them, we have found them defective. In one or another vital respect they are inconsistent and unsatisfactory, infected with religious traditions or worldly philosophy and hence not in harmony with the sacred truths which Jehovah God has restored to his devoted people who call upon his name and seek to serve him with one accord. Especially has this been true in the case of the Christian Greek Scriptures [the New Testament], which throw light and place proper interpretation upon the ancient Hebrew Scriptures. More and more the need has been felt for a translation in modern speech, in harmony with revealed truth, and yet furnishing us the basis for gaining further truth by faithfully presenting the sense of the original writings; a translation just as understandable to modern readers as the original writings of Christ’s disciples were understandable to the simple, plain, common, lowly readers of their day.” (Watchtower magazine dated 9 /15 /1950, p.314)

Keep in mind, while they purport to present “the sense of the original writings” only one of the translators had any knowledge of Greek and this amounted to a grand total two years of study. They believe they are the “restored” Church, just as the Mormons believe, and therefore must believe that the Scriptures are corrupted as they contradict the doctrines and beliefs they hold. Notice also that they believe in modern revelation (again, very similar to Mormons) and so adjust the contradictions in Scripture to their modern revelation by simply changing the words and therefore the meaning of Scripture.

I find it almost comical that they propose that their intent is to make Scripture understandable to the people today just as it was “understandable to the simple, plain, common, lowly readers of their day”. The only literate people in Jesus day were the highly educated and they were far and few between back in the day. There were no simple, plain, common, lowly readers in Jesus day, in fact, not until recently, relatively speaking. And it was only the Jewish clergy that could interpret the meaining of Scripture, not the layman. This, however, is a common Protestant issue as well, in many denominations; the idea that Sacred Scritpure should be simple to understand by everyone. It never has been and never will be. As John Henry Newman said (paraphrasing), the inspiration of Scripture only insures its truth, not its interpretation. It requires as its compliment an infallible interpreter. This is so precisely because it is not easy to understand.

 

[FaithInTheSon]

The following quote from Watchtower might give you a glimpse into the JW mindset that resulted in the “New World Translation”:

"However, during all our years of using these versions [of the Bible] down to the latest of them, we have found them defective. In one or another vital respect they are inconsistent and unsatisfactory, infected with religious traditions or worldly philosophy and hence not in harmony with the sacred truths which Jehovah God has restored to his devoted people who call upon his name and seek to serve him with one accord. Especially has this been true in the case of the Christian Greek Scriptures [the New Testament], which throw light and place proper interpretation upon the ancient Hebrew Scriptures. More and more the need has been felt for a translation in modern speech, in harmony with revealed truth, and yet furnishing us the basis for gaining further truth by faithfully presenting the sense of the original writings; a translation just as understandable to modern readers as the original writings of Christ’s disciples were understandable to the simple, plain, common, lowly readers of their day." (Watchtower magazine dated 9 /15 /1950, p.314)

Keep in mind, while they purport to present “the sense of the original writings” only one of the translators had any knowledge of Greek and this amounted to a grand total two years of study. They believe they are the “restored” Church, just as the Mormons believe, and therefore must believe that the Scriptures are corrupted as they contradict the doctrines and beliefs they hold. Notice also that they believe in modern revelation (again, very similar to Mormons) and so adjust the contradictions in Scripture to their modern revelation by simply changing the words and therefore the meaning of Scripture.

I find it almost comical that they propose that their intent is to make Scripture understandable to the people today just as it was “understandable to the simple, plain, common, lowly readers of their day”. The only literate people in Jesus day were the highly educated and they were far and few between back in the day. There were no simple, plain, common, lowly readers in Jesus day, in fact, not until recently, relatively speaking. And it was only the Jewish clergy that could interpret the meaining of Scripture, not the layman. This, however, is a common Protestant issue as well, in many denominations; the idea that Sacred Scritpure should be simple to understand by everyone. It never has been and never will be. As John Henry Newman said (paraphrasing), the inspiration of Scripture only insures its truth, not its interpretation. It requires as its compliment an infallible interpreter. This is so precisely because it is not easy to understand.

Don’t we all believe the scripture has been corrupted? NO! A JW showed up at my house and told me God protected the scripture. They also told me to trust my government (of all the things a JW would say…).

People say whatever suits their needs at the time though I guess.

The scripture is part corrupt part written in code and still manages to be all true. Anyone else find that extremely cool?

 

[SteveVH]

Don’t we all believe the scripture has been corrupted? NO! A JW showed up at my house and told me God protected the scripture. They also told me to trust my government (of all the things a JW would say…).

People say whatever suits their needs at the time though I guess.

The scripture is part corrupt part written in code and still manages to be all true. Anyone else find that extremely cool?

No offense, but I don’t find it to be cool at all. Please tell me where you think the Scriptures have been corrupted? How does one tell corrupt from non-corrupt?

 

[FaithInTheSon]

R u serious?

What do you think the Church has been doing this whole time? One of the greatest things the Church does for us is sift through the corruption in the different versions of the scripture.

Even with all of that hard work some things surely get through. Also, parts of the Gospel are written in code (romans…). Wait…you didn’t think that all people in positions of authority were actually appointed by God now did you? In a way they were and in a way they weren’t even close to it… but all of Romans is true and makes sense without contradicting the Gospel (where we are told people in positions of authority are our enemies). It takes a lot of thought, but it does fit.

That is what is amazing about it. The central truth is undeniable. Scripture never contradicts scripture, but it can seem to if you don’t think it over enough.

Another good example “Call no man on earth father, for your father is in heaven”. If it hasn’t been corrupted and/or written in code, how can you ever reconcile this with the Church. You can’t. It’s not wrong, it’s a form of code (different from the one in Romans I was referring to).

You already knew this stuff though… I think you just didn’t like the way I said it.

 

[FaithInTheSon]

OK bad example on the saying of our Lord. That is less of a code than Romans. As far as the corruption, even the bible says it will be corrupted without saying it. Why else would it talk about what was going to happen to those who do it? If no one was going to do it God would have never bothered to inspire that to be written.

 

[SteveVH]

R u serious?

Yes, I’m serious.

What do you think the Church has been doing this whole time? One of the greatest things the Church does for us is sift through the corruption in the different versions of the scripture.

Why don’t we see what the Catholic Church actually teaches in this regard.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"*God is the author of Sacred Scritpure. ‘The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.’

For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.

“God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. ‘To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.’”

“The inspired books teach the truth. 'Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”’* (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 105-107)

I think you had better re-assess your view of Sacred Scripture as containing corruption.

Another good example “Call no man on earth father, for your father is in heaven”. If it hasn’t been corrupted and/or written in code, how can you ever reconcile this with the Church. You can’t. It’s not wrong, it’s a form of code (different from the one in Romans I was referring to).

Why do you think these words of Jesus are corrupt? The fact that you do not understand what they mean is not an indication of corruption, but rather ignorance on the part of the one who does not understand. The role of the Church is not to sort out the corruption in the Bible, for there is none. The role of the Church is to teach the truth found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Corruption exists in neither, but it is not always easy to understand by people in our time who are not experts in the ancient Hebrew customs, genres of writing, idioms, methods of argument, etc. that influence the books of the Bible.
We depend upon our Church to make any definitive interpretation of Sacred Scripture, not because corruption exists, but because only the Church, guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit, has the authority to do so.

 

[Kc906]

A JW showed up at my house and told me God protected the scripture.

One of the most damaging things for a witness is the literature put out by their Authority, the WTBS. In their Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures they explicitly state that the the name of God, the Tetragrammaton, was removed from the Greek scriptures by the early Church. “The evidence is, therefore, that the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures has been tampered with, the same as the text of the LXX has been. And, at least from the 3rd century AD onward, the divine name in Tetragrammaton form has been eliminated from the text by copyists who did not understand or appreciate the divine name…” (KIT, pg 17.) This is their justification for adding the name Jehovah some 237 times to the New Testament.

They can’t have it both ways. Either scripture was preserved uncorrupted since the time of the Apostles, or it wasn’t. They Justify adding/changing scripture 237 times in the New Testament by replacing a word with Jehovah. Interestingly enough, they falsely insert the name Jehovah in Revelation 22:6, and later on in the same chaper at Rev 22:18 it is Jesus warning us not to make addition to the words written in that scroll.

 

[FaithInTheSon]

Yes, I’m serious.

Why don’t we see what the Catholic Church actually teaches in this regard.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

"*God is the author of Sacred Scritpure. ‘The divinely revealed realities, which are contained and presented in the text of Sacred Scripture, have been written down under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.’

For Holy Mother Church, relying on the faith of the apostolic age, accepts as sacred and canonical the books of the Old and the New Testaments, whole and entire, with all their parts*, on the grounds that, written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, they have God as their author and have been handed on as such to the Church herself.

“God inspired the human authors of the sacred books. ‘To compose the sacred books, God chose certain men who, all the while he employed them in this task, made full use of their own faculties and powers so that, though he acted in them and by them, it was as true authors that they consigned to writing whatever he wanted written, and no more.’”

“The inspired books teach the truth. 'Since therefore all that the inspired authors or sacred writers affirm should be regarded as affirmed by the Holy Spirit, we must acknowledge that the books of Scripture firmly, faithfully, and without error teach that truth which God, for the sake of our salvation, wished to see confided to the Sacred Scriptures.”’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, par. 105-107)

I think you had better re-assess your view of Sacred Scripture as containing corruption.

Why do you think these words of Jesus are corrupt? The fact that you do not understand what they mean is not an indication of corruption, but rather ignorance on the part of the one who does not understand. The role of the Church is not to sort out the corruption in the Bible, for there is none. The role of the Church is to teach the truth found in Sacred Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Corruption exists in neither, but it is not always easy to understand by people in our time who are not experts in the ancient Hebrew customs, genres of writing, idioms, methods of argument, etc. that influence the books of the Bible.
We depend upon our Church to make any definitive interpretation of Sacred Scripture, not because corruption exists, but because only the Church, guided into all truth by the Holy Spirit, has the authority to do so.

Why do you think I think any words of our Lord are corrupt?

When did I contradict anything you said?

BTW the Church spent a heck of a lot of resources preserving the scripture. You are downplaying that work. The scripture has been repeatedly corrupted by people within and outside of the Catholic Church. It has also been restored to a more pure form and more than one time. Almost every update for some reason contains one corruption or another. It is similar to the battle between hackers and anti-virus companies (except the anti-virus has gained the upper hand in this situation obviously).

Nothing our Lord ever said was corrupt do not put words in my mouth. He is the definition of purity. PEOPLE have corrupted His words. It was prophesied this would happen. Are you implying the prophecy is wrong?

A perfect example would be the JW’s corruption.

Of course the original texts were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. The more you read the more obvious it becomes.

I do not mean to offend you. If you see a gap in my logic I am grateful if you point it out… I just feel you haven’t done that yet. If I am indeed being hard-headed please put me in my place because I still see no gap in my logic.

 

[FaithInTheSon]

Also, the KJV was corrupted.

Do you think the NIV is flawless?

 

[FaithInTheSon]

I’m still waiting on a response…
What would need to be interpreted if there is no code to interpret? It is written in code.

It is also corrupted.

How can you refute that?

 

[SteveVH]

Why do you think I think any words of our Lord are corrupt?

Because you used them as an example of corruption, here:

Originally posted by FaithInTheSon
Another good example “Call no man on earth father, for your father is in heaven”. If it hasn’t been corrupted and/or written in code, how can you ever reconcile this with the Church.

When did I contradict anything you said?

How about here:

Originally posted by FaithInTheSon

Don’t we all believe the scripture has been corrupted?

BTW the Church spent a heck of a lot of resources preserving the scripture. You are downplaying that work.

How so? I am the one defending the Church and the canon of Sacred Scripture as the inspired word of God, free from courruption. You are the one claiming it is corrupt (see above).

The scripture has been repeatedly corrupted by people within and outside of the Catholic Church. It has also been restored to a more pure form and more than one time. Almost every update for some reason contains one corruption or another. It is similar to the battle between hackers and anti-virus companies (except the anti-virus has gained the upper hand in this situation obviously).

Well, maybe this is where the breakdown in communication has occured. I am speaking of the Catholic Bible, the Sacred Scriptures which the Church possesses. I am not speaking of the various atrocities such as the New World Translation which have without a doubt been corrupted. Joseph Smith also put out his own version of the Bible which is certainly corrupted. But any comparison to the Vulgate would quickly reveal the flaws. My point is that we can trust Sacred Scripture as possessed and understood by the Catholic Church, as the inspired word of God without concern for corruption or error.

Nothing our Lord ever said was corrupt do not put words in my mouth. He is the definition of purity. PEOPLE have corrupted His words. It was prophesied this would happen. Are you implying the prophecy is wrong?

As I said above, you used Christ’s own words as an example of corruption in the Bible. If I have misunderstood you then please except my apology but also understand that your statement may have been confusing.

Also, the KJV was corrupted.

Do you think the NIV is flawless?

Agreed. As you may have gathered by now, I thought you were speaking of Scripture in general, not the versions created by those who left the Church.

I’m still waiting on a response…

Sorry, you were responding to a post that I made just yesterday afternoon. I don’t live on this site and actually have a life that requires my attention elsewhere at times. In any event, it appears that I have misunderstood your comments. Yes, people have corrupted and even perverted scripture, but the Catholic Church possesses the inspired scriptures along with ability and authority to teach according to correct interpretation. That is the beauty of being Catholic. If every Bible on the planet was burned tomorrow, the Church would still possess the truth given to it by the Apostles.

God bless.

 

[SteveVH]

I’m still waiting on a response.

 

[FaithInTheSon]

1. I did not use it as an example of corruption. It was an example of code
   2)You just took my words out of context. I went on to say that it is NOT wrong. It is code. If it were to be taken as a literal saying it would contradict doctrine.
2. All versions of the sacred scripture have been corrupted throughout the translations. The nature of words alone corrupts them. Let alone malicious intent (which even some of the higher-ups of the Church have had, including Cardinals. Do you not see that?)
3. No need to apologize, I understand that my statement may have been misleading. However, if you go back over it you can see that I was not contradicting anything you said.
4. Now I will contradict something you said: I do not believe the Church is perfect at all. In purity of scripture or interpretation. It would be false to say the Holy Spirit has never allowed the Church to make mistakes.

I believe the Church is guided by the Holy Spirit. I do not believe it has been made perfect by the Holy Spirit. In order for this to happen, free will would have to be thrown out.

You do not have a perfect scripture or a perfect interpretation. By the nature of our existence nothing we ever do will be perfect especially interpreting something as perfect as God’s word after almost 2,000 years of translation and corruption (NT). Let alone the OT. The original scripture was perfect; it is still corrupt in every version to this day. The Catholic Parish Edition just happens to be the best translation and the Church just happens to have the best interpretation we, as humans, have.

I can not point out any errors, if that is what you are looking for me to do. I do not understand hewbrew or greek. Even if I did that is a very complex thing for just 1 person to try to do.

People within the Church disagree on interpretation as well…

No need to apologize for anything you say.

In response to every Bible burned scenario… God would probably reveal the truth to the Church. If God were to decide not to do that, it would not happen.

EDIT: Sometimes I get impatient. I post on here a lot while I’m at work. Sorry about that.

 

[FaithInTheSon]

Oh also, I never said people did not corrupt the words of our Lord. I can not pretend to know for certain if that saying has been corrupted or not.

If you consider the rest of the code, it would appear that it was not corrupted.

I do not pretend to know the answer to that.

and/or implies it could be and or it could be just or. I believe it is a code and people did not corrupt that particular saying. I do not pretend to know for certain.

 

[FaithInTheSon]

One of the most damaging things for a witness is the literature put out by their Authority, the WTBS. In their Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the Greek Scriptures they explicitly state that the the name of God, the Tetragrammaton, was removed from the Greek scriptures by the early Church. “The evidence is, therefore, that the original text of the Christian Greek Scriptures has been tampered with, the same as the text of the LXX has been. And, at least from the 3rd century AD onward, the divine name in Tetragrammaton form has been eliminated from the text by copyists who did not understand or appreciate the divine name…” (KIT, pg 17.) This is their justification for adding the name Jehovah some 237 times to the New Testament.

They can’t have it both ways. Either scripture was preserved uncorrupted since the time of the Apostles, or it wasn’t. They Justify adding/changing scripture 237 times in the New Testament by replacing a word with Jehovah. Interestingly enough, they falsely insert the name Jehovah in Revelation 22:6, and later on in the same chaper at Rev 22:18 it is Jesus warning us not to make addition to the words written in that scroll.

Excellent post. Jehova, from what I have read, is actually a term that was developed in medieval times.

As far as God’s real name goes… sometimes I am happy we don’t know it. YHWH is literally all we have because of the nature of the language. We assume the E and A.
Look at how we abuse what we do know for evidence of why I am sometimes happy about it.

The truth is it was not preserved by God. You can not have it both ways. It has been, and will continue to be, corrupted by people outside of the Catholic Church and within it is well.

 

[SteveVH]

In response to every Bible burned scenario… God would probably reveal the truth to the Church. If God were to decide not to do that, it would not happen.

It already happened. It’s called Sacred Tradition. The Bible is only that part of Sacred Tradition that was committed to writing. The Church possesses that truth in her very life; in the sacraments, the liturgies, the prayers, etc.

EDIT: Sometimes I get impatient. I post on here a lot while I’m at work. Sorry about that.

No problem.

 

[campeador]

There are no examples of God changing someone’s name without giving a reason.

 

[terrig]

It’s one thing for a JW to believe Jesus is Michael the Archangel but what about a Catholic priest? In the homily this past Sunday at a parish I normally don’t attend Mass at, a foreign priest (from South America) said Michael was God. The reading was from the Book of Daniel and spoke of Michael as a prince. (In the St. Michael’s Prayer, we call him “prince of the heavenly host”) He keep repeating that Michael was God. Then when the prayer intentions were said - St. Michael the Archangel was asked to protect the church. What a contradiction. Maybe this priest was a former JW.

 

[Jimmygill88]

I wouldn’t waste my time arguing with JWs at all