- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Gollmaudi……….The preexistence theory is the exact same as saying Jesus was Michael the Arch angle, One is just as deceptive as the other is, actually the Michael as Jesus theory has more merit then the preexistences, they can at least show some preexisting activity of some kind and have a name for him. We have to ask ourselves why would anyone want to believe in a preexisting Christ anyway, what the underlying reason for that. It could be people want an excuse to say they can't overcome because they aren't exactly like him, therefore they have an excuse not to have the same relationship with the Father as His is.
Adam hold onto what you have, you know the soundness you have concerning this, Don't be dragged down into their confusion, Hold on to what God has shown you and it's clear logic.peace and love to you and yours………gene
Nick…..please be more specific, who is asking you not to except whats not written , thats the problem your not accepting whats specifically written you add to whats written.
Those who add to things not specifically written is that not a sin or distorting of God's words
Nick……….if we add to the word of God things that are not specifically said, is that not wrong and that applies to me also, no just you.
nick……If we say, people are implying things they are not, would you call that sin , it's definitely a lie isn't it. Look it really bothers me when someone miss quotes me or says I am saying things i am not saying. If i am wrong then show me clearly and address that issue, don't change it to something else. I understand we all can have some different understandings about subjects thats ok, but to infer thing the person is not saying that is a sin.
IMO…..gene
Quote (t8 @ June 07 2008,23:50) The organisation that says Jesus is Michael is the same organisation that said Jesus 2nd coming was 1914. But Jesus said in Matthew 24:27:
For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.So if they got the wrong date, then what are the chances that this teaching is right?
Hey t8,What version are you quoting from – I like it.
Ya, I really wish sometimes I could belong to a church again. I confess that part of me really likes organized religion. I love the people and I love serving in various ways. I'm the type of person that has my hand in everything ya know? Serving at the senior's luncheon, leading worship, teaching Sunday school, helping with the teen sleepover…… I think that is why the JW's appeal to me – they are busy with service.
Truth is more important, I know.
Anyway thanks,
MandyHi,
Scripture never says Jesus is Michael or Moses or Enoch for that matter.
That is a very silly idea.Quote (Nick Hassan @ June 09 2008,13:42) Hi GB,
Where does scripture says we should accuse others of sin?
Nick…..If thy brother sin against you take it to Him First and i
you know the story. Lets say the brother said a lie about you is that a sin?, Yes it would be. Do you not have a right to say he sinned against you, yes you do.Hay i know we all do wrong at times so i sin also at time and need forgiving to, and if i have wronged some one then let him speak and if what they say is true i will apologize to him..
I am not to proud to apologize when i am wrong. At least i hope i am not.
peace to you………gene
Quote Why was Michael's name changed to Jesus when he came to earth? Why not just continue to call him Michael? I don't get it. Unlike today, back then names had meaning. Sometimes, when someone takes on a new role in God's purpose, they are given a new name.
Jehovah changed the name of Abram to Abraham (“Father of a Crowd” [Multitude]) and that of Sarai (possibly, “Contentious”) to Sarah (“Princess”). (Ge 17:5,6,15,16)
We could ask: Why not just continue to call him Abram.
Or we could ask: Why not continue to call Jacob, Jacob, instead of Israel.
I don't get it.Quote So if they got the wrong date, then what are the chances that this teaching is right? –T8
Silly Rabbit, tricks are for kids. You could just as easily use that logic to imply that our non-belief of the trinity is wrong. It is one of the main things we are known for.
And on the date, more was expected than should have been, true. But we don't believe the date was wrong.Quote (david @ June 09 2008,16:37)
And on the date, more was expected than should have been, true. But we don't believe the date was wrong.
This one David.I do not wish to discuss this now, but since I’d never find it again, I thought I’d post t8's words from another thread here:
“First off, it [Hebrews 1] says to which of the angels, and then points to the son. This can equally be read as him not being an angel and being an angel too. Try reading it with the understanding that he is an angel and it also makes sense.”–t8
“The word angel in the OT is {mal-awk}. This word is applied to men and heavenly beings. That is my point. So in the usage of that word, Jesus is indeed an angel {mal-awk}.”
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….3;st=10Nick, I'd rather discuss this here, in the main thread. 3 others have been started all exactly the same. I prefer to have one large thread than several little threads all discussing the same thing.
I though we could start with T8's point above. Is T8 wrong?
So, we have a better idea what he is saying, let's look at the full context:
“We know that Jesus is not and angel because we are told just that in Hebrews.”–Kerwin.
T8 responds:
“Actually that is an assumption on your part.First off, it says to which of the angels, and then points to the son. This can equally be read as him not being an angel and being an angel too. Try reading it with the understanding that he is an angel and it also makes sense.
Secondly scripture calls Jesus an angel.
Malachi 3:1
“See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me. Then suddenly the Lord you are seeking will come to his temple; the messenger of the covenant, whom you desire, will come,” says the LORD Almighty.Almost without exception this passage has been interpreted to refer to two messengers – John the Baptist as the first messenger (or angel) “preparing the way” and the Lord Jesus Christ as the second “messenger (or angel) of the covenant”. It is also quoted in Matt.11:10.
NOTE: The word for angel (messenger) in the OT is mal'ak {mal-awk'} – hence Malachi.
Matthew 11:10-15,
“This is he, of whom it is written, 'Behold, I send My messenger before Your face, who shall prepare Your way before You'.John 13:16
I tell you the truth, no servant is greater than his master, nor is a messenger greater than the one who sent him.The reality here is that the word 'angel' means 'messenger' and Jesus and John were both messengers. Messengers can be men, cherub, seraph, or whatever God chooses. More often than not, translators use the word “angel” when it is a being from heaven, and messenger when it is a “man” – hence why we usually think that all angels are always beings from heaven.”
Then, in his next post, he says:
“Hi Nick.The word angel in the OT is {mal-awk}. This word is applied to men and heavenly beings. That is my point. So in the usage of that word, Jesus is indeed an angel {mal-awk}.
I have never taught that Jesus is a cherub or seraph, so in reference to them being called messengers, I am not lumping Jesus in that group.”
https://heavennet.net/cgi-bin….3;st=10I thought we could begin with this thought as it is the only apparent “contradiction” of believing Michael is another name for Jesus. As T8 points out, it is based on an “assumption.”
Is T8 wrong Nick?
(I underlined it for you so you could see it and answer it. I know you won't.)david
mal·’akh′ (Hb. messenger/angel)
ag′ge·los (Gk. messenger/angel)If Jesus is a malakh, would he not be God's chief malakh–his “arch” (chief) malakh?
Jesus was “sent forth” by God to deliver God's words, not his own. (The Bible says this in many places.)
Jesus is therefore a “malakh” and not only that, he would seem to be God's arch malakh.The Bible never mentions arch malakh in plural. You have to go outside of the Bible to find such references. Since arch malakh means “chief/main/principle” malakh, it makes sense there would only be one chief malakh. (And the Bible never mentions it in plural.)
Even without going into the scriptures I want to go into, strickly from what the words actually mean, Jesus is without question God's arch malakh (archmessenger/archangel.)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
