- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (david @ Nov. 20 2005,21:41) Quote Scripture does not teach any divine trinity.
Scripture does not teach Jesus is Michael the archangel.You rightly reject the first but you support the second?
Why do you apply different standards of proof in these matters?
Hey Nick, you wrote the above in Biblical discussions in under “the Holy Spirit” heading. It came out of nowhere. I think it was meant for here.There are five points or so that strongly imply (yes, I know, only strongly imply) that Jesus is Michael. There's really nothing that strongly implies he isn't, other than tradition and not wanting to believe because that would just be not what you want to believe.
Not so with the trinity. There are things that could be taken to imply that there is a trinity if you play and twist and ignore the vast majority of the Bible. Not so with Michael being Jesus.
Hi david,
Speak with any trintarian and you will hear them say there are many, many scriptures that imply a trinity. They write more books on the subject that we could count. That does not make it any more true though.But you teach Michael as Jesus with even less scriptural evidence or implications. How can you justify walking off the path of truth into speculation and drawing others to follow you? Do you not fear God?
Quote you teach Michael as Jesus with even less scriptural evidence or implications. How can you justify walking off the path of truth into speculation and drawing others to follow you? Do you not fear God?
Believe what you will. You're right. There are only five or so times where it is strongly implied that the two are the same. And apparently, there are even less arguments against these implications, as you haven't really said anything to refute them.So, if you were talking with someone about the trinity right now, you would show me where my logic is wrong; where my understanding of those scriptures I mentioned are wrong. You would show a scripture that very clearly says: Jesus is not Michael, just as many scriptures clearly say: God is not a trinity.
And while I am not able to produce a scripture that says: Jesus is Michael, neither are you able to produce one that says: Jesus is not Michael. So I ask you: Why speculate that he isn't? (Of course, that was a bit of joke.)
Speculation is not the same as reasoning things out. How do you explain all those points I mentioned on page five?david
I wish to insert a comma in my first sentence above so that it reads:
Believe what you will. You're right, there are only five or so times….Quote (david @ Nov. 20 2005,23:38) Quote you teach Michael as Jesus with even less scriptural evidence or implications. How can you justify walking off the path of truth into speculation and drawing others to follow you? Do you not fear God?
Believe what you will. You're right. There are only five or so times where it is strongly implied that the two are the same. And apparently, there are even less arguments against these implications, as you haven't really said anything to refute them.So, if you were talking with someone about the trinity right now, you would show me where my logic is wrong; where my understanding of those scriptures I mentioned are wrong. You would show a scripture that very clearly says: Jesus is not Michael, just as many scriptures clearly say: God is not a trinity.
And while I am not able to produce a scripture that says: Jesus is Michael, neither are you able to produce one that says: Jesus is not Michael. So I ask you: Why speculate that he isn't? (Of course, that was a bit of joke.)
Speculation is not the same as reasoning things out. How do you explain all those points I mentioned on page five?david
Hi david,
I asked you to show me how Hebrews ch 1-3 is consistent with Jesus being an angel. Angels are contrasted with the Son of God. Is more evidence necessary or are your ” 5 implications” sufficient to declare this doctrine safely before God?You're right. I found a couple things that could imply what you say. But, no concrete proof of anything. And as you say: But are implications sufficient?
“So he has become better than the angels, to the extent that he has inherited a name more excellent than theirs.” (1:4)
What does 'becoming better than the angels' imply? Obviously, he was always distinct and special, only begotten, the firstborn of creation, the beginning of the creation of God. But why does it say here that he 'became better than the angels'? What does this imply?
Now, the situation is clear:
“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 Pet 3:22)
Being the archangel, or chief of the angels in no way puts him under the angels. He is second only to God. Everything is subject to him.Was satan an angel? He of course wouldn't be called an angel now. But was he? I'm curious what you think of this spirit creature, this son of God who “did not stand fast in the truth.” What is an angel?
Sure, you say: 'You asked me to show you how Heb 1-3 is consistent with Jesus being an angel.
Well, I've been waiting for you to explain those 5 points I mentioned. And I continue to wait.Hi david,
You say that Scripture does not say the Jesus is not an angel and that seems good enough for you to state that he is.Scripture does not say many things. It does not say you are God. It does not say the sky is green or Canada is part of the USA.
Such things may or may not be true but we only build doctrine on what scripture does say.
And scripture does not say Jesus is an angel or an archangel.
Quote (david @ Nov. 20 2005,23:38) Quote you teach Michael as Jesus with even less scriptural evidence or implications. How can you justify walking off the path of truth into speculation and drawing others to follow you? Do you not fear God?
Believe what you will. You're right. There are only five or so times where it is strongly implied that the two are the same. And apparently, there are even less arguments against these implications, as you haven't really said anything to refute them.So, if you were talking with someone about the trinity right now, you would show me where my logic is wrong; where my understanding of those scriptures I mentioned are wrong. You would show a scripture that very clearly says: Jesus is not Michael, just as many scriptures clearly say: God is not a trinity.
And while I am not able to produce a scripture that says: Jesus is Michael, neither are you able to produce one that says: Jesus is not Michael. So I ask you: Why speculate that he isn't? (Of course, that was a bit of joke.)
Speculation is not the same as reasoning things out. How do you explain all those points I mentioned on page five?david
Hi david,
You still expect us to draw conclusions from what you see as implications? You seriously want us to disprove your implications? You must be joking again. You still seem to believe implication is a basis for teaching about truth? Then you should be an avid trinitarian surely. You really do not understand that we draw conclusions only from what is revealed? Why bother to take any scripture seriously if the thoughts of fools are equally valid?The amount of scriptures that prove God is not a trinity is overwhelmingly large.
There aren't really any scriptures that prove that Michael the archangel is not Jesus.
There is a difference.I have looked at both sides. Many of the trinitarian scriptures have taken quite a bit of philisophical twisting to accomplish their purpose.
All of the scriptures that deal with Michael the archangel however are quite clear and not very twistable. And, unlike the trinity doctrine, there are really no arguments against Jesus being Michael other than the fact that it doesn't feel comfortable or what you are used to.
Jesus is called Prince of Princes and leader of all the congregations, also he has many crowns; but yet Michael is only called prince and leader of the congreation, and he only has one crown. Something to think about. Also did you know that verse 9 of the book of Jude was added according to Oregin. The book of Enoch says that Michael instructs the people of the world in the last days. Hmmmmmm!
In the bible Jesus has many arrows, but in Rev 6:2 that person has a bow with no arrows. I do not believe in astrology, but it like Sagittarius with a bow and no arrows. Oh and thank you for the birthday wishes.
Hi david,
Do you regard scripture as the purest source of spiritual wisdom and knowledge?
Do you base your beliefs only on scriptures that are clear and written and have other witnessing verses?
Is implication sufficient to teach from?
When does implication really not become speculation?The word ANGEL is a interpretation, not a translation. The correct translation is, MESSENGER OF GOD. Most all Christians imagin vain things about angels. In our bibles when wings are mentioned its always speaking parabolically in dreams or visions; ALWAYS. Messengers of God do not literally have wings. Wings symbolize status, the angels with 4 wings are later given 6. 2 wings before their service,4 during their service on earth, and 6 when in heaven.
Hi david,
Not one scripture says Jesus is an angel. So as well as having not one clear verse in the whole bible there are no parallel verses to give witness to this idea as truth and to show Godly confirmation.I am sure you believe in rightly extracting truth from scripture using such principles. You have plenty of scriptural knowledge and awareness and are never slow to show what you believe to be true using scriptural evidence.
So you need to either come up with scriptural proofs for your claim here, remembering implication is irrelevant, or you should stand up for the Word of God and reject this claim as false.
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 23 2005,07:50) Diversion david? Buy your own.
There was no Jesus before the Word. It was only after the Word became flesh that Jesus existed. There was no Michael or angels. The Word is the beginning of all creation.God speaks things into existance and of course uses the Word to do it.
The Word became Jesus and dwelt among us. Is this not so?
Michael is an archangel that God created through the Word and that's all he is.Hi kenrch,
Scripture says
“Jesus Christ came in the flesh” So he was Jesus Christ before he came surely?Quote The word ANGEL is a interpretation, not a translation. The correct translation is, MESSENGER OF GOD. Most all Christians imagin vain things about angels. In our bibles when wings are mentioned its always speaking parabolically in dreams or visions; ALWAYS. Messengers of God do not literally have wings. Wings symbolize status, the angels with 4 wings are later given 6. 2 wings before their service,4 during their service on earth, and 6 when in heaven.
Nick strongly disagrees. His preconceived images of angels as I've stated before is makes this idea impossible for him. Angels have wings in all his pictures in his mind. Jesus doesn't have wings, so he can't be Michael the Archangel.Nick, no Jehovah's Witness smokes. I would have thought you would know that. I wouldn't think you would smoke. Now I'm not so sure.
My question wasn't a diversion, but central to what we are discussing.
Nowhere does the Bible say: Smoking is bad.
But, the Bible provides many many principals that allow us TO REASON things out for ourselves. Is it speculation to say that 'smoking is wrong.'
Well, it's unclean. We are to be holy (clean) because Jehovah is holy. It defiles the body. It shows disrespect for others, we are to love others and respect ourselves, etc, etc, etc.
But no, nowhere does the Bible say smoking is wrong.
Should we smoke? I would think the answer is obvious.Similarly, the Bible says “God is love.” This is a principal, a basic truth. Does God torture people forever in a burning hell? Well, the Bible doesn't say anywhere that he doens't. But it does say: God is love. So we can reason: Is it loving to burn people alive? If your troubled conscience will not allow you to answer, then perhaps a dictionary will help you out with the word “love.”
To speculate is different than to reason based on Bible scriptures.
“I think armageddon is going to happen on the …. day of ….” That is speculation. Speculation is based on guesses rather than knowledge. I have provided several pieces of knowledge that point to Michael being Jesus' name while in heaven.Matthew:
21 She will give birth to a son, and you must call his name Jesus, FOR HE WILL SAVE HIS PEOPLE from their sins.” 22 All this actually came about for that to be fulfilled which was spoken by Jehovah through his prophet, saying: 23 “Look! The virgin will become pregnant and will give birth to a son, and they will call his name Im·man´u·el,” which means, when translated, “With Us Is God.Here, a reason is given why he must be named Jesus: for he will save his people. The name Jesus has a meaning. He was given this name because of his purpose on earth. Was he named Jesus in heaven? If so, why are we given a reason for him being named Jesus on earth in connection with his assignment on earth?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
