- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote Did you want more from us?
No Nick. I'm expecting less and less from you by the minute. (sorry. That was uncalled for.) You have pressures. You're the administrator. You have a lot of threads to keep up. You have a somewhat stressful day job, one which I couldn't even imagine. I just have gotten upset lately because you keep repeating the same words over and over and over again. If you don't want to answer me, don't.david
A lot has been said in the “angel of the Lord” thread, that I haven't even looked at until today.
This is something T8 said with reference to Jesus being an angel:
I agree it is a theory and haven't suggested otherwise. It is also the reason I put it into the inferred doctrines forum. However I think that just because something can only be inferred, doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong. Surely some inferred ideas are correct too.–page 3 or 4?
JOHN 12:49
“because I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak.”
Jesus was sent by his Father and spoke what his Father told him. That, by definition, means he delivered a message. Nowhere have I suggest that Jesus was “just an angel.” But by definition, that is one word that fits his role in Jehovah's purpose. He was Gods Word. Was he just a messenger? Or was he the greatest of God's messengers? Perhaps God's “chief” “messenger” or in other words, his “arch” “angel.”?T8, same thread, and page:
We know in Malachi that Christ is called a messenger (angel), and so is John the Baptist, but we also know a pre-incarnate Christ was with Israel and Moses when they left Egypt. The Angel of the Lord was there also. Are they two or one in the same.I put this here just to suggest that I am not the only one to consider these things. It seemed like Nick was trying to paint me as fantastically bizarre to consider that Jesus could be considered an angel at all. Yet, this is something t8 has considered.
I'd like to add something that I found that I wrote in that other thread:
Quote MATTHEW 10:40
““He that receives YOU receives me also, and he that receives me receives him also that sent me forth.”MATTHEW 12:44
“Then it says, ‘I will go back to my house out of which I moved’; and on arriving it finds it unoccupied but swept clean and adorned.”MATTHEW 13:20
“As for the one sown upon the rocky places, this is the one hearing the word and at once accepting it with joy.”JOHN 14:24
“He that does not love me does not observe my words; and the word that YOU are hearing is not mine, but belongs to the Father who sent me.”JOHN 5:19
“Therefore, in answer, Jesus went on to say to them: “Most truly I say to YOU, The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing. For whatever things that One does, these things the Son also does in like manner.”JOHN 7:16
“Jesus, in turn, answered them and said: “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me.”JOHN 12:49
“because I have not spoken out of my own impulse, but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to what to tell and what to speak.”Ok, you'll notice that Jesus was definitely sent forth by his Father. He didn't come of his own initiative. He was “sent forth” by God.
You will also note that the words he spoke (the message) was not his, it was his Fathers.Hence, Jesus was by definition, a messenger, the greatest of messengers, among many many other things.
I really wish you would look into enoch David. Just because i can tell you are an honest and intelligent person. I think if you truly looked into it, you would know that there is truth there.
I don't dispute that there is truth in Enoch. My problem is that there also seems to be falsehood. So how do you distinguish between the two.
One example:
SECTION V, 92:1
“The book written by Enoch -[Enoch indeed wrote this complete doctrine of wisdom…”
But many who promote Enoch also state that it wasn't written by Enoch. You yourself have a few theories, one being that someone compiled different writings of Enoch. Yet, notice what this says, that he “indeed” wrote it.
Things like this bother me.david
David,
I understand that bothers me as well. I dont use enoch for doctrine. It is only a confirmation of beliefs I already gleaned from the bible.
Yes, several apocryphal books are tacked onto the end of the book.
(1) The Book of the Watchers (chaps. 1-36);
(2) The Book of the Similitudes (chaps. 37-7l)-,
(3) The Book of Astronomical Writings (chaps. 72-82);
(4) The Book of Dream Visions (chaps. 83-90); and
(5) The Book of the Epistle of Enoch (chaps. 91-107).There are actually 5 books put into one book. Read book 1 and book 2, these are the books quoted by the new testament writers. Nothing in these first two book contradicts scripture that I have found. It is as if multiple authors added to their predecessors work.
My main thrust is that once you study the book of Enoch you will realize that The New Testament writers believed it was scripture. That basically forces you to seriously take it into consideration if you are to honestly be a truth seeker.
Not that you are not capable of doing a study yourself, by using the text found on this website. But I do highly reccomend purchasing the book with commentary. The reason why is because every single page is filled with chain references to the new testament. Once you see these your eyes open.
Quote Nothing in these first two book contradicts scripture that I have found. It is as if multiple authors added to their predecessors work. You may want to check that website I quoted in Enoch. There, some guy looks at many things he considers to “contradict scripture.”
I'd rather not discuss this here, though, unless it directly relates to Michael the Archangel.
david
Just one more thing that I would like to add from the “angel of the Lord” thread, (from page 9 I think).
It's something that Ronald stated. I add this only for interest, and because it seems to belong in this thread.
I'm not sure if Ronald is a 7th Day Adventist, but if I remember correctly, they believe much as Ronald does, that Jesus is Michael the Archangel, but that this doesn't mean that Jesus is “cheif” or “principal” “angel,” but that he is “chief” over the angels, which he obviously is.Ronald writes:
Quote The word “archangel” designates Michael as one who is boss over the angels, just as the word “architect” designates one as over the builders. Thus the archangel is a step above the angels that are often referred to in the Bible.
However, Jesus is spoken of the “angel [messenger] of the covenant”. (Malachi 3:1) The word “angel” in the Bible does not always refer to the “angels” that are being spoken of in Hebrews 1:4-14, because it can also refer to anyone who acts as a messenger.Quote Hi david,
This is a forum.
People bring their ideas here and share them.
The facilitators are not obliged to read or agree or disagree with anything written but just to allow them to be aired for the public to see.
We do that.
Did you want more from us?Yes Nick, you're not obliged to read anything I write. But the fact that you continuously disagree with me without actually reading what I write would seem to strongly suggest a closed mind. I was under the false impression that we were having a conversation. Then it became clear to me you have no idea why I believe what I do. And as I'm not sure you'll read this, I'm going to stop typ…
Nicks, I have repeatedly asked you what the term “angel” means.
Here are some of your own words, from the “nature of angels” thread, p 1:
“Angel” is the same word as “messenger” so that confuses some people.
I just thought I would put this in here, and have you on record as acknowledging this fact.
david
Nick, in the “nature of angel's” thread:
“.. but as you say God does all things through his servants and Michael seems to be the Archangel in charge of the hosts of heaven.“
POINT 9
WHO ELSE IS SPOKEN OF AS HAVING ANGELS UNDER SUBJECTION?
Aside from the Creator himself, only one faithful person is spoken of as having angels under subjection—namely, Jesus Christ. (Matthew 13:41; 16:27; 24:31) The apostle Paul made specific mention of “the Lord Jesus” and “his powerful angels.” (2 Thessalonians 1:7) And Peter described the resurrected Jesus by saying: “He is at God’s right hand, for he went his way to heaven; and angels and authorities and powers were made subject to him.”—1 Peter 3:22.
The Bible states that war broke out in heaven and that “Michael and HIS angels battled with the dragon….and its angels.” (Rev 12:7) Thus, Michael is the Leader of an army of faithful angels.
Revelation also describes Jesus as the Leader of an army of faithful angels. (Rev 19:14-16) It is “his army” of angels. (Rev 19:19) And the apostle Paul specifically mentions “the Lord Jesus” and “his powerful angels” (2 Thess 1:7; Mat 16:27; 24:31; 1 Pet 3:22)So the Bible speaks of both Michael and “his angels” and Jesus and “his angels.” (Mat 13:41) Since God’s Word nowhere indicates that there are two armies of faithful angels in heaven–one headed by Michael and one headed by Jesus–it is logical to conclude that Michael is none other than Jesus Christ in his heavenly role.If Jesus is the head of the angels, and Michael is the archangel, then that works if Jesus is the head of Michael.
Revelation 12:7
And there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back.Matthew 13:41
The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil.Luke 12:8
“I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God.Is Jesus God then? Of course not. If we say Michael and Jesus are the same, then you give license to those who say God and Jesus are the same do you not? Even worse, it could be argued given this logic that Michael is God.
I personally think the order is as follows: God > Jesus > Michael > Angels
If this is the case, then they are Michael's, Jesus, and God's angels and we can still respect their unique identities whilst referring to the same angels.
Revelation 1:1
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show his servants what must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John,Also as has been mentioned: Michael is but one of the chief princes.
Daniel 10:12-13
But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia.God > Jesus > A hierarchey of Angels with stations and positions in an almost militaristic fashion. Michael is like one of the Generals. Jesus is the King.
Quote (Mercy @ Sep. 21 2006,04:45) I agree with that line of reasoning David. Jesus was a messenger of God who brought the “good news”.
I believe that Jesus was the angel of lord that said in the burning bush “I AM”.
Hi Mercy …
Jesus cannot be an/the 'Angel of the Lord'
Now when I speak of an 'angel' I am speaking of the non-human kind i.e. the host of heaven … angelic beings.Now if Jesus was an Angel of the Lord he could not qualify to be GOD's Only-Begotten Son!
Why? Because GOD said so, and it appears that the Early Church including the writer of Hebrews were aware of this & had no concept that Jesus was at anytime, an angelic being- (Heb 1:4-7) Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 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? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
- (Heb 1:13) But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
- (Heb 2:5-9) For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. 6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
The writer of Hebrew is obviously refuting 'angel-christology' which appears was prevalent at his time; he is refuting it using the strongest possible terms. He is showing that Jesus the Messiah, GOD's Son, was not an angelic being at any time!
GOD never ever intended the world to come to be put in subjection under any angel. It was always the will of GOD that the world be under subjection to human beings, not angelic beings hence the terms, 'man & son of man'.
The writer of Hebrews is equating Jesus, even the risen Jesus, as a bonafide human being, a man, a son of man, and not an angelic being!Stephen & Paul [Gal 3.19] were fully aware of the OT and they stated that what spoke to the patriarchs were 'angels', angelic beings, plain and simple … they never equate Jesus as an OT angel … never!
Via what the Jews call, the law of agency, GOD spoke and acted via/thru His angels.
- (Acts 7:30) And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.
- (Acts 7:35) This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.
- (Acts 7:38) This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
- (Acts 7:52-53) Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: 53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
- (Acts 7:55-56) But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Stephen mentions the well-known facts that it was 'angels' that appeared & spoke to the patriarchs, GOD working thru them.
He finally begins to speak of the Messiah in verse 52ff … he nevers says that the Messiah was speaking to the patriarchs; rather, that it was Stephen's audience who were the betrayers & murderers of the Messiah in NT times! i.e. in their time! He does not depict the Messiah in OT times but rather depicts the Coming of the Messiah in their time! Not only did the Messiah come, but his audience were instrumental in his death!And finally, if GOD had spoken thru His Son in OT times via any means, the following verses would not make sense …
(Heb 1:1-2) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 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;
(Compare: (1 Pet 1:20) Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, )
You see!
GOD did NOT speak via His Son in time past (simply because His Son was NOT conceived/begotten yet!)It wasn't until Jesus came into being … until he was begotten … in these last days that GOD had an only-begotten Son to speak thru!!!
GOD's Son was foreordained even in OT times. He did not exist in OT times. He did not exist until he was conceived/begotten like every other human beingJesus was & ever will be a human being
He was never at any time, an angelic being!Hope the above info helps …
HI,
Adam is right in all he says about Christ according to the flesh. But according to the spirit he was a divine being greater than any mere angel, who was with God in the beginning, and through whom all of creation, including that of the messengers came.Quote (Mercy @ Sep. 22 2006,12:01) God > Jesus > A hierarchey of Angels with stations and positions in an almost militaristic fashion. Michael is like one of the Generals. Jesus is the King.
That is what I think too.HI t8. You stated:
Quote If Jesus is the head of the angels, and Michael is the archangel, then that works if Jesus is the head of Michael.
If Jesus is the head of the angels (which we know he is, and let me add, SO IS MICHAEL; Rev 12:7) and Michael is the archangel (or chief angel, or chief of the angels, which we know he is) then what conclusions can be drawn?Michael has “his angels.” (Rev 12:7)
Jesus has “his angels.” (Mat 13:41)
The both have angels under subjection.
Are there two armies of angels in heaven? Or one?Which brings us to your argument against this:
Quote Luke 12:8
“I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God.Is Jesus God then? Of course not. If we say Michael and Jesus are the same, then you give license to those who say God and Jesus are the same do you not? Even worse, it could be argued given this logic that Michael is God.
Interesting. But hasn't God subjected all things under Jesus feet? Don't many scriptures say that:
HEBREWS 2:5-9
“For it is not to angels that he has subjected the inhabited earth to come, about which we are speaking. But a certain witness has given proof somewhere, saying: “What is man that you keep him in mind, or [the] son of man that you take care of him? You made him a little lower than angels; with glory and honor you crowned him, and appointed him over the works of your hands. All things you subjected under his feet.” For in that he subjected all things to him [God] left nothing that is not subject to him. Now, though, we do not yet see all things in subjection to him; but we behold Jesus, who has been made a little lower than angels, crowned with glory and honor for having suffered death, that he by God’s undeserved kindness might taste death for every [man].”
1 CORINTHIANS 15:27
“For [God] “subjected all things under his feet.” But when he says that ‘all things have been subjected,’ it is evident that it is with the exception of the one who subjected all things to him.”
EPHESIANS 1:22
“He also subjected all things under his feet, and made him head over all things to the congregation,”
PHILIPPIANS 3:21
“who will refashion our humiliated body to be conformed to his glorious body according to the operation of the power that he has, even to subject all things to himself.”So, if God has subjected all things (with the obvious exception of Himself; 1 Cor 15:27) under Jesus feet, then God's angels would also be subject to Jesus, as we know they are. That's why they could be called “his angels” in Matthew for example.
But why could they be called Michael's angels? (Rev 12:7)
Did God subject all things under Michael's feet? Apparently, because he has angels, “his angels.” I guess that can mean only one thing. They are the same person!Quote I personally think the order is as follows: God > Jesus > Michael > Angels
Very interesting!
The order is of course correct. This Michael, if he is the third highest in the universe…wow. What will the holy spirit think of this? (That was a joke for the trinitarians.) But seriously, Michael, is someone of great import. He's huge. God, Jesus, Michael, etc. Wow. You'd think there'd be more mention of Michael. Wait! There is. He goes by the name Jesus. Right.Hi Adam, you state:
Quote Hi Mercy … Jesus cannot be an/the 'Angel of the Lord'
I actually don't have time now to discuss this futher. But since Mercy believes that Jesus is or could be the Angel of the Lord and since T8 isn't sure on that either, please try to have that conversation with them. I'll be back later.
bye
Quote (Adam Pastor @ Sep. 21 2006,20:00) Quote (Mercy @ Sep. 21 2006,04:45) I agree with that line of reasoning David. Jesus was a messenger of God who brought the “good news”.
I believe that Jesus was the angel of lord that said in the burning bush “I AM”.
Hi Mercy … Jesus cannot be an/the 'Angel of the Lord'
Now when I speak of an 'angel' I am speaking of the non-human kind i.e. the host of heaven … angelic beings.Now if Jesus was an Angel of the Lord he could not qualify to be GOD's Only-Begotten Son!
Why? Because GOD said so, and it appears that the Early Church including the writer of Hebrews were aware of this & had no concept that Jesus was at anytime, an angelic being- (Heb 1:4-7) Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they. 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? 6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.
- (Heb 1:13) But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?
- (Heb 2:5-9) For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak. 6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands: 8 Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him. 9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.
The writer of Hebrew is obviously refuting 'angel-christology' which appears was prevalent at his time; he is refuting it using the strongest possible terms. He is showing that Jesus the Messiah, GOD's Son, was not an angelic being at any time!
GOD never ever intended the world to come to be put in subjection under any angel. It was always the will of GOD that the world be under subjection to human beings, not angelic beings hence the terms, 'man & son of man'.
The writer of Hebrews is equating Jesus, even the risen Jesus, as a bonafide human being, a man, a son of man, and not an angelic being!Stephen & Paul [Gal 3.19] were fully aware of the OT and they stated that what spoke to the patriarchs were 'angels', angelic beings, plain and simple … they never equate Jesus as an OT angel … never!
Via what the Jews call, the law of agency, GOD spoke and acted via/thru His angels.
- (Acts 7:30) And when forty years were expired, there appeared to him in the wilderness of mount Sina an angel of the Lord in a flame of fire in a bush.
- (Acts 7:35) This Moses whom they refused, saying, Who made thee a ruler and a judge? the same did God send to be a ruler and a deliverer by the hand of the angel which appeared to him in the bush.
- (Acts 7:38) This is he, that was in the church in the wilderness with the angel which spake to him in the mount Sina, and with our fathers: who received the lively oracles to give unto us:
- (Acts 7:52-53) Which of the prophets have not your fathers persecuted? and they have slain them which showed before of the coming of the Just One; of whom ye have been now the betrayers and murderers: 53 Who have received the law by the disposition of angels, and have not kept it.
- (Acts 7:55-56) But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, 56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.
Stephen mentions the well-known facts that it was 'angels' that appeared & spoke to the patriarchs, GOD working thru them.
He finally begins to speak of the Messiah in verse 52ff … he nevers says that the Messiah was speaking to the patriarchs; rather, that it was Stephen's audience who were the betrayers & murderers of the Messiah in NT times! i.e. in their time! He does not depict the Messiah in OT times but rather depicts the Coming of the Messiah in their time! Not only did the Messiah come, but his audience were instrumental in his death!And finally, if GOD had spoken thru His Son in OT times via any means, the following verses would not make sense …
(Heb 1:1-2) God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, 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;
(Compare: (1 Pet 1:20) Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you, )
You see!
GOD did NOT speak via His Son in time past (simply because His Son was NOT conceived/begotten yet!)It wasn't until Jesus came into being … until he was begotten … in these last days that GOD had an only-begotten Son to speak thru!!!
GOD's Son was foreordained even in OT times. He did not exist in OT times. He did not exist until he was conceived/begotten like every other human beingJesus was & ever will be a human being
He was never at any time, an angelic being!Hope the above info helps …
I agree with you adam.I don't think Jesus was a seraphim, cherabim, malakim etc..
I think he was the word of God, the unique son of God, the messenger of God.
It all hinges on the deffinition of the word “angel”.
Hi Adam, you state:
“The writer of Hebrew is obviously refuting 'angel-christology' which appears was prevalent at his time; he is refuting it using the strongest possible terms. He is showing that Jesus the Messiah, GOD's Son, was not an angelic being at any time!”
That's one way to look at it.
Hebrews 1:5 – “For to what angel did God ever say, ‘Thou art my Son…’”
Hebrews 1:13 – “But to what angel has he ever said, ‘Sit at my right hand…’”
Hebrews 2:5 – “For it was not to angels that God subjected the world to come…”
(Revised Standard Version)Since God said to Jesus ‘Thou art my Son’, ‘Sit at my right hand’ and subjected the coming world to him, then it would appear Jesus is not an angel, UNLESS JESUS IS AN ANGEL IN A WAY THAT DIFFERENTIATES HIM FROM OTHERS.
HEBREWS 1 AND 2 COULD JUST AS EASILY BE DIFFERENTIATING JESUS AS AN ANGEL FROM OTHER ANGELS AS IT COULD MEAN THAT HE IS NOT AN ANGEL.
EXAMPLE 1
To illustrate this point, look at Psalm 82:7, where Jehovah said to Israelite judges:
“Nevertheless, you shall die like men and fall like any prince.” (Revised Standard Version)
Does the expression “you shall die like men” mean that those judges were not men? Or does it mean that they were being differentiated from ordinary men? In a similar way, the Hebrew passages could be complying with this same idea, that is, that Jesus though an angel, is to be distinguished from “ordinary” angels.EXAMPLE 2
Another example might be brought forth to demonstrate this thinking. The account at Acts 23:9 reads:
“And there arose a great cry: and the scribes that were of the Pharisees’ part arose, and strove, saying we find no evil in this man: but if a spirit or an angel hath spoken to him, let us not fight against God.” (KJV)
Some scholars understand that the “spirit” referred to here is a demon while the “angel” referred to one of the faithful holy angels. But does that mean that “angels” are not “spirits” since the passage reads “spirit or an angel”? No, the Scriptures are plain that angels are spirits. (See Psalm 104:1, 4; Hebrew 1:7; 1 Kings 22:20-22.) Notwithstanding that fact, angels are differentiated from spirits at Acts 23:9.Could this same principle apply with respect to the citations from Hebrews 1:5, 13 and 2:5 and the question of Jesus’ status as an angel?
Based on other parts of the Bible, I believe that is the way Hebrews must be understood. It could be understood either way. But because there are so many other points pointing to Michael being another name for Jesus, I believe Hebrews has to be understood it as JESUS IS AN ANGEL IN A WAY THAT DIFFERENTIATES HIM FROM OTHERS.
Also, verse 4. In your Bible, the KJV, it says:
“Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.”In receiving a name more excellent then they have, he was “MADE” so much better than the angels.
Other Bibles:
Hebrews 1:4 (New International Version)
“So he became as much superior to the angels as the name he has inherited is superior to theirs.”Hebrews 1:4 (English Standard Version)
“having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.”It appears he BECAME so much superior to angels in that he inherited a name so superior.
Quote You see!
GOD did NOT speak via His Son in time past (simply because His Son was NOT conceived/begotten yet!)I see. You lost me. I have always been under the impression that Jesus was the firstborn of all creation.
Only begetton
Transliteration:
monogenes {mon-og-en-ace'}
Word Origin:
from 3441 and 1096
TDNT:
4:737,606
Part of Speech:
adjective
Usage in the KJV:
only begotten 6, only 2, only child 1Total: 9
Definition:
single of its kind, onlyJesus existed before the foundations of the earth were established. He was the firstborn, the unique son. Only he was in the exact expressive image of the father. Only he was begat by the father. Everything ever created since Jesus was made “through and for” Jesus. Jesus was hidden in the Fathers bosom.
Jesus is the Amen or Amun meaning hidden god.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
