On Michael:
We need to focus on MJ's human side, what evidence can we say alludes to the faked death actually happening and then try to peace together a purpose. A problem with many hoax believers is they make theories without gathering direct evidence first. I would argue that's why we lost people like JonellStar (one of her theories being MJ is with his real Children, since black people can't have white kids), or HelenaB who said MJ faked his death so he could live his life as Janet after finishing his sex change (not exaggerating her theory). The worse thing about these theories is not only are they flimsy at best, but they contradict MJ's own words. MJ's testimony over the testimony of others is what really powers the hoax death. We undermine it by developing these ideas, which includes the religious theory.
Michael is/was a Jehovah's witness. There were rumors that he separated from them after thriller but they were debunked sometime in an interview in the 2000s
TV Guide in 2001 Michael was asked: "Are you still a Jehovah's Witness?" The King of Pop unhesitatingly answered: "Yeah." He further added: "I've done, you know, we call it pioneering [full-time preaching]. We do 90 hours a month. [This quota has been reduced since.] I don't do as much now because I'm busy. You go door to door. I wear a fat suit, pop-bottle glasses, mustache, buck teeth, and, like, an Afro wig. And I knock on the door and say we're Jehovah's Witnesses."
Michael Still claimed to be one in 2001 and had his "funeral" in a Jehovah's witness church, with a Jehovah's witness minister giving the final prayer at the memorial. By all intents and purposes MJ still wants people to think of him as one and there has yet to be a rebuttal found from him.
What do Jehovah's witnesses believe about Jesus? In general they share the same belief that Jesus is the son of God, the distinction lies from the trinitarian Majority in their belief that Jesus was the Archangel Michael (as opposed to being a part of a Godhead). Michael understands that the Archangel Michael is distinct from the Michael/Jesus he worships, which is why he clearly stated that he was trying to be Christ-like, as opposed to the next Christ.
JSYK, I'm a trinitarian Christian personally.
http://www.watchtower.org/e/20050422/article_02.htm
On Jesus:
I'll respond to Blue Fox of Love first to get things started here.
Quote from: Blue Fox of Love on October 15, 2011, 03:18:54 AMOk, first. There is nothing wrong with comparing Mike with Jesus.
The reason why some people think it's a shame to do it, is because they have a "divine" perception of Jesus.
Whatever our beliefs are, we have to really stay down to earth. My understanding of the first post is in no way saying that Michael would "replace" Jesus. The 2 men are from different times, so how could that be possible anyway? Jesus did what he had to do at its own era, and so did Michael. So nobody should feel offense about the comparison: they are 2 great guys that did great things to spread their message of love and respect.
I agree here more of less but it seems kind of disingenuous to your next few words.
QuoteHistorical proofs and historical writings showed the historical existence of Jesus. Not it's "divine" existence. The "divine" reputation of Jesus was spread by the unoriginal gospel (the only gospel founded are translations). So right from there, that belief is not based on proofs but on the interpretations that some religious dudes had at the time... and those translaters rewrote the story about 100 years after the crucifixion, and they filled the missing parts on people sayings. Not what we can call a reliable source. Thinking that Jesus was not a human is your belief, it is your right and your choice, but that doesn't mean it is the only way to see it. I personnaly see Jesus as an amazing revolutionary man, and I would have been one of his followers for sure, but to me he's in no way a God or God himself.
Instead of quoting scholars that confirm your biases, do some research for yourself. For example, most scholars agree that Paul's epistles are the earliest of the Christian writings. Paul's writings state in multiple places that salvation is attained through Jesus Christ. This does not
overtly appear in any of the synoptic gospels, but it does appear in John. John's gospel qualifies this "salvation through Jesus" rhetoric by also saying Jesus is "one with the father" he is God. We can extrapolate from there the the divine Jesus was the intended interpretation by his immediate followers. You can argue whether or not THEY were wrong, but that was the early intention.
QuoteAnd if he was fulfilled with a light, it is the exact same light we are ALL fulfilled with.
The reason why I'm saying all this is to make you see that in that perspective, yes, Mike can easily be compared to Jesus.
1) They are both very popular and influent;
2) They both spread a message of tolerance, love and respect;
3) They are both healers;
4) They both have been incredibly harrassed and teased;
5) They both faked their death.*
...And 6) I wish to say one day that they have both "resurrected".
* Those are old discoveries that seem to show that Jesus has been rescued not long after his crucifixion. He has been take care of and when he went back to see his friends, as we can read in the bible, they didn't recognise him at first. Further, the story says that he was often "appearing" in a garden... and at the time, only butchers and garden keepers had the right to... shave!
I know the legend you are referring to. Jesus survived the crucifixion went to another town where he was nursed to health and where he remained for the rest of his life. The town still has a place where they think his tomb is. The problem is that legend isn't all that old compared to the gospel accounts, it attempts to be more "realistic" but the chances of surviving a crucifixion are pretty slim. Not to mention it bears similarities to gnostic origins (much later than the chosen canon) which stated Jesus wasn't crucified in the first place. Also tolerance wasn't a part of Jesus' message (Love, Respect, and Humility yes, tolerance no). Michael was a healer?