- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote remembering implication is irrelevant My computer dictionary says this:
Implication:
1.The implicit (implied though not directly expressed) conclusion that can be drawn from something.
2. A likely consequence.
3.The action of implicating or state of being implicated.Sure, maybe one implication could be termed irrelevent. Because it's only one. But what if you had a number of implications that all pointed in the same direction? And what if you didn't have anything to disagree with those implications.
Suddenly they are not so irrelevent.Hi david,
Do you really apply human reasoning to the study of scripture?
Does the human imagination equal the revelation of God?
In what place did Jesus tell us to do this?
I think he showed far more respect for truth than to apply such random principles to words as precious as these.
You see one implication. I may see another.
In what way does this help us reach consensus in finding truth in the words written by the Holy Spirit through men?
Such folly divides and should be cast aside as totally inadequate to know the mind of God.
At least we must start with what is clearly revealed to define doctrine and leave the speculations to bored fools.Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 23 2005,21:05) Hi kenrch,
Scripture says
“Jesus Christ came in the flesh” So he was Jesus Christ before he came surely?
Nick,Please give me the scriptures that say the Word was flesh in heaven. I know scriptures that say the word became flesh. I see and understand scriptures that say if anyone did not believe that the Word became flesh and was Jesus, is an antichrist.
Please help me out. You said:
Scripture says
“Jesus Christ came in the flesh” So he was Jesus Christ before he came surely?
“Scripture says” 'Jesus came in the flesh' So he was “Jesus Christ before he came” surely?Please help me out. I need to know those scriptures. You make it sound like those scriptures are on the top of your head surely?
Quote (kenrch @ Nov. 24 2005,06:20) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 23 2005,21:05) Hi kenrch,
Scripture says
“Jesus Christ came in the flesh” So he was Jesus Christ before he came surely?
Nick,Please give me the scriptures that say the Word was flesh in heaven. I know scriptures that say the word became flesh. I see and understand scriptures that say if anyone did not believe that the Word became flesh and was Jesus, is an antichrist.
Please help me out. You said:
Scripture says
“Jesus Christ came in the flesh” So he was Jesus Christ before he came surely?
“Scripture says” 'Jesus came in the flesh' So he was “Jesus Christ before he came” surely?Please help me out. I need to know those scriptures. You make it sound like those scriptures are on the top of your head surely?
In fact I would appreciate “anyone” who can give me those scriptures. Really!Quote (kenrch @ Nov. 24 2005,06:20) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 23 2005,21:05) Hi kenrch,
Scripture says
“Jesus Christ came in the flesh” So he was Jesus Christ before he came surely?
Nick,Please give me the scriptures that say the Word was flesh in heaven. I know scriptures that say the word became flesh. I see and understand scriptures that say if anyone did not believe that the Word became flesh and was Jesus, is an antichrist.
Please help me out. You said:
Scripture says
“Jesus Christ came in the flesh” So he was Jesus Christ before he came surely?
“Scripture says” 'Jesus came in the flesh' So he was “Jesus Christ before he came” surely?Please help me out. I need to know those scriptures. You make it sound like those scriptures are on the top of your head surely?
Hi kenrch,
1Jn 4.2
” By this you know the Spirit of God; every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God”
en.2Jn 7
” For many deceivers have gone out into the world, those who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh. This is the deceiver and the antichrist”
The Word was not flesh in heaven.
Jn 1.14
” The Word became flesh, and dwelt among us”ACTS 17:2
“So according to Paul’s custom he went inside to them, and for three sabbaths he REASONED WITH THEM FROM THE SCRIPTURES,”
(See also Acts 17:17; 18:19)Humans were given the ability to reason. They are not made like animals with instinct. They have the “power of reason.” (Rom 12:1)
Do you smoke Nick? Now, I'd really like to know? Scriptures apply to everything. There's no scriptures about smoking. Is smoking OK? Can we not reason from the scriptures, as Paul did?
Quote i david,
Do you really apply human reasoning to the study of scripture?
Does the human imagination equal the revelation of God?
In what place did Jesus tell us to do this?“Where does it say there is only one archangel?”
Nowhere. But you show me the name of another archangel and we'll end this conversation. Why do you SPECULATE that there is another one Nick. You see, I can play that game too. The Bible only mentions one, yet you SPECULATE that there are many. Why? Why does the Bible never use the word: “Archangels” in plural? Of course, this doesn't prove that there only is one, it only implies it. Yet, the BIBLE only tells us of one, and yet YOU speculate there are more. Why? This is the same reasoning you've been using on me over and over.Where does it say angels are sons of God?
Really Nick? Check your Bible.Where does it say Michael is God's chief angel?
It says Michael is THE archangel. It never uses the phrase: “one of the archangel,” or “a archangel,” but only “Michael the archangel.” Archangel is a word that means chief, or prime, or main angel.Where does it say Michael is God's representative?
If you not above, we notice that Michael is the archangel. Angel is a word that actually means messenger. A messenger is a representative of the one who send the message, he not?Seriously, you don't smoke, do you?
Hi david,
I did not say there was more than one archangel. That is a moot point. It is you who have declared this to be the case outside of scriptural evidence. What I asked was scriptural proof for your statement that there is only one. You seem to have none thus you should not make such statements as fact.
So please address the other questions too giving chapter and verse so we have concrete facts to discuss. Persisting in inference and speculation is not common ground and we establish facts from scriptural proof which is common ground.
This seems a reasonable request from those who administer a biblical forum so please respect the question and those who do rely on scripture as the only proof of doctrine.Hey Nick,
The other questions about the morning star, etc, I have never addressed or used as proof. I only answered the questions that you asked based on what I said.
You asked: “Where does it say there is only one archangel?”
My answer: Nowhere.
My question: Where does it say there are more than one? Where does it even hint that there are more than one?
Your answer: You refuse to answer, because as you say, it is “a moot point,” apparently because it is detrimental to your beliefs.I understand.
Hi david,
Unfair. It is up to you to prove what you teach as doctrine. I await that response. So far you have come up with no scriptural proofs. Is it not yet plain to you that this is an unscriptural doctrine?Nick just wrote:
“It is up to you to prove what you teach as doctrine.”I have already given several scriptural reasons for this belief. The fact that you are leaving it up to me and putting the weight on me implies that you cannot disprove it. For if you could easily disprove it, you would have and we wouldn't be having this conversation.
Therefore, since you cannot definitively disprove it, you are in the same situation I am in.
The difference however is that I have several scriptural reasons for believing that Michael is the name of Jesus while in heaven whereas you don't really have anything that prooves or even implies otherwise.Hi david,
You have told us sufficient thank you. You are able to accept doctines as true on the basis of implication alone though for some reason trinity does not reach this standard. You do not regard revelation as necessary to state such doctrine as true though you claim to respect scripture.Clearly your denominational leaders have more influence than Jesus Christ, the apostles or prophets.
Jn 14.23
” If anyone loves me he will keep my word and my Father will love him, and We will come to him and make our abode with him. He who does not love me does not keep my words;and the word which you hear is not mine, but the Father's who sent me”
2Jn 9
” Anyone who goes too far and does not abide in the teaching of Christ, does not have God;the one who abides in the teaching, he has both the Father and the Son.”Hi,
Jn 17.17
“Sanctify them in the truth; Your Word is truth”
1Thess 2.10
“and with all the deception of wickedness for those who perish, because they did not receive the love of the truth so as to be saved. For this reason God will send upon them a deluding influence so that they will believe what is false, in order that they all may be judged who did not believe the truth, but took pleasure in wickedness”
Rom 1.21
” but they became futile in their speculations..”
2Tim 2.23
” But refuse foolish and ignorant speculations..”
2Cor 10 .5
” We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge oof God…”
1Tim 1.3f
“..remain on in Ephesus so that you may instruct certain men not to teach strange doctrines, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genologies, which give rise to mere speculation rather than furthering the administration of God which is by faith”Knowledge is written
Faith builds on that knowledgeSpeculations like trinity and Jesus = Michael are enemies of faith and Knowledge.
Shun them and grasp truth.
2Peter 1.2-8Hi david ,
When I said Michael=Jesus is a moot point I was not meaning I could ever believe that possibility. What I meant was that, should you choose to believe this I will not be able to convince you otherwise. Neither could I convince you Michael was not Gabriel, the angel of the Lord or Joseph of Arimathea for that matter should you decide to believe such folly.It is not the job of the bible to disprove speculations-that just feeds them and the egos of their inventors.
The right approach is to only teach what is written.
OK, let's teach some things that are written:
JESUS CALLS OUT WITH AN ARCHANGELS VOICE.
At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (RS), the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as “the archangel’s call,” and Jude 9 says that the archangel is Michael.
It is reasonable to conclude that only an archangel would call “with an archangel’s voice.” Would it be appropriate to liken Jesus’ commanding call to that of someone lesser in authority? Would it Nick?
For example, a king is above a noble. If you have a king, someone in great power and he calls out something of importance, you wouldn’t say: ‘He called out with a nobles voice,’ unless the King was a also a noble. If the king wasn’t a noble, you would say: He called out with the voice of a king.
To say he called out with a nobles voice would be to diminish him, UNLESS HE WAS BOTH A NOBLE AND A KING.
Here's where that “power of reason” comes in that the Bible speaks of. It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Mt 28:18; Re 17:14)Let's say this one more time:
If the designation “archangel” applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to “an archangel’s voice” would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.
Reasonably, then, it seems at though the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ.What else can we discern from scripture?
“ARCHANGEL” IS NEVER FOUND IN PLURAL IN SCRIPTURE
Interestingly, the expression “archangel” is never found in the plural in the Scriptures, thus implying that there is only one. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that Jehovah God has delegated to one, and only one, of his heavenly creatures full authority over all other of these powerful spirit creatures. Who better to do this than his only begotten son?Of course, we know of only one archangel, Michael THE archangel. To speculate that there are others would go beyond what the scriptures tell us, wouldn't it Nick? Archangel means: chief angel. Here again, if we can get past our preconceived ideas about angels taken from who knows where, Jesus seems to fit as being the one in charge of all the other angels.
Is there anything else?
I've noticed Nick, you've never really commented on any of these points, other than to dismiss them as silly, since that is all you seem capable of doing.WHO TAKES ACTION AGAINST SATAN, “RULER OF THIS WORLD”?
Revelation 12:7-12 says that Michael and his angels would war against Satan and hurl him and his wicked angels out of heaven in connection with the conferring of kingly authority on Christ. Jesus is later depicted as leading the armies of heaven in war against the nations of the world. (Rev. 19:11-16) Hmmmm. Interesting.
Is it not reasonable that Jesus would also be the one to take action against the one he described as “ruler of this world,” Satan the Devil? (John 12:31)
Daniel 12:1 (RS) associates the ‘standing up of Michael’ to act with authority with “a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time.” That would certainly fit the experience of the nations when Christ as heavenly executioner takes action against them.
So the evidence indicates that the Son of God was known as Michael before he came to earth and is known also by that name since his return to heaven where he resides as the glorified spirit Son of God.Michael the archangel and Jesus are beginning to look like the same individual. They are beginning to look like they take the same actions. Interesting.
Another question you refuse to answer:
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.Again, it seems that Michael and Jesus have another thing in common, another specific thing that they share with no one else. Another coincidence perhaps?
OK, I'd really like your comments on these things Nick. I don't think you've ever commented on any of them specifically.
JESUS IS COMMISSIONED TO DESTROY ALL THE NATIONS AT ARMAGEDDON
There are also other correspondencies establishing that Michael is actually the Son of God. Daniel, after making the first reference to Michael (Da 10:13), recorded a prophecy reaching down to “the time of the end” (Da 11:40) and then stated: “And during that time Michael will stand up, the great prince who is standing in behalf of the sons of [Daniel’s] people.” (Da 12:1) Michael’s ‘standing up’ was to be associated with “a time of distress such as has not been made to occur since there came to be a nation until that time.” (Da 12:1) In Daniel’s prophecy, ‘standing up’ frequently refers to the action of a king, either taking up his royal power or acting effectively in his capacity as king. (Da 11:2-4, 7, 16b, 20, 21) This supports the conclusion that Michael is Jesus Christ, since Jesus is Jehovah’s appointed King, commissioned to destroy all the nations at Har–Magedon.—Re 11:15; 16:14-16.Quote (david @ Nov. 26 2005,01:36) OK, let's teach some things that are written: JESUS CALLS OUT WITH AN ARCHANGELS VOICE.
At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (RS), the command of Jesus Christ for the resurrection to begin is described as “the archangel’s call,” and Jude 9 says that the archangel is Michael.
It is reasonable to conclude that only an archangel would call “with an archangel’s voice.” Would it be appropriate to liken Jesus’ commanding call to that of someone lesser in authority? Would it Nick?
For example, a king is above a noble. If you have a king, someone in great power and he calls out something of importance, you wouldn’t say: ‘He called out with a nobles voice,’ unless the King was a also a noble. If the king wasn’t a noble, you would say: He called out with the voice of a king.
To say he called out with a nobles voice would be to diminish him, UNLESS HE WAS BOTH A NOBLE AND A KING.
Here's where that “power of reason” comes in that the Bible speaks of. It is only logical, therefore, that the voice expressing this commanding call be described by a word that would not diminish or detract from the great authority that Christ Jesus now has as King of kings and Lord of lords. (Mt 28:18; Re 17:14)Let's say this one more time:
If the designation “archangel” applied, not to Jesus Christ, but to other angels, then the reference to “an archangel’s voice” would not be appropriate. In that case it would be describing a voice of lesser authority than that of the Son of God.
Reasonably, then, it seems at though the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ.
Hi david,
Jude 9
“But Michael , the archangel, when he disputes with the devil and argued about the body of Moses..”
So Michael the archangel is an archangel but not necessarily the only one-no mention of his voice raising the dead here
1Thess 4.16
” For the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first..”
So when the Lord returns there will be the voice of the archangel and the sound of the trumpet of God. No surprises here. Jesus will neither speak with the voice of an archangel nor sound like the trumpet of God. These are not unexpected accompaniments to such an awesome event. Why should someone so awesome have to announce his own arrival?Skip the guesswork and speculation.
Quote (david @ Nov. 26 2005,01:41) What else can we discern from scripture? “ARCHANGEL” IS NEVER FOUND IN PLURAL IN SCRIPTURE
Interestingly, the expression “archangel” is never found in the plural in the Scriptures, thus implying that there is only one. Hence, it is reasonable to conclude that Jehovah God has delegated to one, and only one, of his heavenly creatures full authority over all other of these powerful spirit creatures. Who better to do this than his only begotten son?Of course, we know of only one archangel, Michael THE archangel. To speculate that there are others would go beyond what the scriptures tell us, wouldn't it Nick? Archangel means: chief angel. Here again, if we can get past our preconceived ideas about angels taken from who knows where, Jesus seems to fit as being the one in charge of all the other angels.
Hi david,
Daniel tells us Michael is a prince too. Does this mean to you he has several roles or does prince mean archangel? If he had the sole role as the chief angel how could he also fulfill other roles equally as important? And Daniel mentions several other princes including the Prince of Princes, the messiah, Jesus Christ.
Clearly if prince means archangel then:Michael is only one of many
Jesus is not Michael
Jesus is greater than Michael.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
