- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Only God can raise the dead; just because a trumpet call goes out, that does not mean that person can raise the dead. About the name Michael: God is called merciful and long suffering. In the book of Enoch, Michael is also called merciful and long suffering. This does not mean that Michael is God, but that God and Michael share somthing in common. Just because a persons name is Michael that does not mean that they are like God Himself.
John 1:3 says nothing that was made was made without him.
Hebrews 1 and 2 cleary present jesus as not being an angelQuote (kenrch @ Nov. 26 2005,19:16) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 26 2005,18:51) Hi kenrch,
The bible does not say the Word created anything. God is the creator who created everything including Michael, through Christ.
I believe the word says all things were created by Him and for Him. Col 1:16
I guess that means something different
Hi kenrch,
Both are true.
Jesus, ironically, is the carpenter and the Father is the builder. The carpenter does the actual work but the design and responsibility and the glory is with the builder.Quote If Jesus was an angel scripture would have said
“he became for a little while lower than the REST OF the angels”
It does not .
He did not become lower than himself.Often, by changing one word, our preconceptions in thinking are unblocked:
Jesus is a king. He humbled himself and took on man's form. In the flesh here on earth, Jesus experienced what it means to be human, “a little lower than angels.” (Hebrews 2:7) He became acquainted with human frailties and is therefore well-equipped to serve as mankind’s King and Judge.
While Jesus was on earth, did he have the power of a king? No, he was just an ordinary man on earth.So one could say that while on earth, he was made lower than kings. Yet, this in no way limits him from being a king or ruler while in heaven, does it?
You wouldn't have to say: He was made a little lower than other kings.
Simply saying he was made lower than kings does not mean he was not a king in heaven. It simply means what it says: That he was made lower than that group, even though he could HAVE BEEN a part of it while in heaven.
The same simple logic holds true for the word “angel.”1 Thessalonians 4:16 (New American Standard Bible)
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.How should this sentence be taken? Here is a sentence that is very similar in stucture. What does it mean?
'For Nick descended the stairs with a shout, with the voice of an opera singer, and with the trumpet of his father….'
Normally, when such a sentence occurs, one would naturally think that Nick had the voice of an opera singer, for that is what it says. For that is what it says. You don't want to believe it. But, that is how the Bible translations read.
Quote Hi david,
If he was lower than the angels then
he
was
not
an
angel.No, he definitely wasn't an angel while on earth. He was a human. Humans are lower than angels. He was therefore lower than angels. Where is the problem here?
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 27 2005,01:25) Quote (kenrch @ Nov. 26 2005,19:16) Quote (Nick Hassan @ Nov. 26 2005,18:51) Hi kenrch,
The bible does not say the Word created anything. God is the creator who created everything including Michael, through Christ.
I believe the word says all things were created by Him and for Him. Col 1:16
I guess that means something different
Hi kenrch,
Both are true.
Jesus, ironically, is the carpenter and the Father is the builder. The carpenter does the actual work but the design and responsibility and the glory is with the builder.
OK NICKQuote (david @ Nov. 27 2005,01:38) 1 Thessalonians 4:16 (New American Standard Bible)
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.How should this sentence be taken? Here is a sentence that is very similar in stucture. What does it mean?
'For Nick descended the stairs with a shout, with the voice of an opera singer, and with the trumpet of his father….'
Normally, when such a sentence occurs, one would naturally think that Nick had the voice of an opera singer, for that is what it says. For that is what it says. You don't want to believe it. But, that is how the Bible translations read.
DavidI don't think Nick is the King of kings.
Quote (david @ Nov. 27 2005,01:33) Quote If Jesus was an angel scripture would have said
“he became for a little while lower than the REST OF the angels”
It does not .
He did not become lower than himself.Often, by changing one word, our preconceptions in thinking are unblocked:
Jesus is a king. He humbled himself and took on man's form. In the flesh here on earth, Jesus experienced what it means to be human, “a little lower than angels.” (Hebrews 2:7) He became acquainted with human frailties and is therefore well-equipped to serve as mankind’s King and Judge.
While Jesus was on earth, did he have the power of a king? No, he was just an ordinary man on earth.So one could say that while on earth, he was made lower than kings. Yet, this in no way limits him from being a king or ruler while in heaven, does it?
You wouldn't have to say: He was made a little lower than other kings.
Simply saying he was made lower than kings does not mean he was not a king in heaven. It simply means what it says: That he was made lower than that group, even though he could HAVE BEEN a part of it while in heaven.
The same simple logic holds true for the word “angel.”
Hi david,
Scripture says Jesus was a man, not an angel. Men are not angels. Angels do not become men. Men do not become angels.
Acts 2.22f
” …Jesus the Nazarene, a man, attested to you by God….this man..”He is a man, a descendant of Abraham according to the flesh.
Hebrews.2.16
” For assuredly He does not give help to angels, but he gives help to the descendant of Abraham.Therefore he had to be made like his brethren in all things..”His brethren are not angels but men.
God does not help angels so he was not an angel but a man.
A king is a role and not a kind of being. Any man can become a king but no man can become an angel. Angels and men are beings.He was made lower than another kind of being-angels.
Hi david,
Here are some rhetorical questions from God.
Heb 1.5
” For to which of the angels did He ever say
'You are my Son, today I have begotten You'?
and again
'I will be a Father to him and he shall be son to me?'”Would you answer God ' the angel Jesus'?
God defines angels for you in Heb1.14
” Are they not ministering spirits, sent out to render service for the sake of those who will inherit salvation”
Is that all you see the Son of God as? Not as a glorious, victorious heavenly being seated at the right hand of God but only a mere servant of those who are being saved? You should respect him more than that.Hi t8, there's getting to be a large number of topics. I think 700 or so. I believe there is a topic on Michael/Jesus in the truth or tradition area. There are also at least two similar themes in the “general questions” area. Any way they could be put in the same area?
I've added a few thoughts, since I've posted in this area. Since it's recently been brought up again, I thought I'd add to it. Notice points 1-5 and 6b and 6c for example.
The following is taken from http://jehovah.to/exe/general/angel.htm:
Some testimony of the early church fathers and others
Cyclopedia of Biblical Theological & Ecclesiastical Literature by McClintock and Strong submitted:
“…the ‘Sons of God’, or even in poetry, the ‘gods’ (Elohim), the ‘holy ones’, etc. are names which, in their full and proper sense, are applicable only to the Lord Jesus Christ. As He is ‘the Son of God’, so also is He the ‘angel’ or ‘messenger’ of the Lord.” –Volume I, “Angel”, p. 226.Scholar, Martin Werner, wrote:
“… in the Post-Apostolic period the appearances of angels in the Old Testament narrative, so far as they occurred in some way for the succour of men, had already begun to be interpreted as appearances of Christ. This identification long remained a favourite one, as Origen, Justin, Irenaeus, Novatian and the Letter of Hymenaeus as well as other documents abundantly show us.”–Martin Werner, D.D., The Formation of Christian Dogma, p. 130Another scholar, John A. Lees asserted:
“The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael (the archangel) with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the ‘child’ and the archangel in Revelation 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Dnl [Daniel]…”–John A. Lees, The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, 1930, Vol. III, p.2048.Also, J. N. D. Kelly noted:
“In a number of passages (from church father Hermas) we read of an angel who is superior to the six angels forming God’s inner council, and who is regularly described as ‘most venerable’, ‘holy’, and ‘glorious’. This angel is given the name Michael; and the conclusion is difficult to escape that Hermas saw in him the Son of God and equated him with the archangel Michael.”–J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (Harper Brothers), p. 95MOST USED ARGUMENT AGAINST THIS BELIEF: HEBREWS 1:5,13; 2:5
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?A SECONDARY REASON FOR QUICKLY DISMISSING THIS THOUGHT:
As one website said: “Michael the Archangel, though, is only an angel. He is not God. . . . Jesus is God incarnate (John 1:1,14). Michael the Archangel is a powerful angel, but still only an angel.” The trinity doctrine. If Jesus is God Almighty, uncreated, etc, of course he is not an angel. Unfortunately, the trinity doctrine is false. I won’t go into that. A related idea that seems to come up with this is the idea that Jesus was worshiped, and the angels aren’t worshiped. Unfortunately for this idea, the word “proskyneo” has many meanings and the translator decides which is appropriate. Jesus was not worshipped. And he is not God almighty.I’M NOT SAYING JESUS IS “JUST AN ANGEL.” SO DON’T ACCUSE ME OF THAT.
The angels are called sons of God (Genesis 6:2-4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7), but Jesus is THE Son of God (Hebrews 1:8; Matthew 4:3-6). Again, a differentiation. Yet, a similarity.So let’s now look at why we believe as we do:
POINT 1
With Pharaoh’s armies pursuing them, Moses and the Israelites were accompanied by an angel through the miraculously parted Red Sea. At Exodus 14:19-22, we find:
“Then the angel of the true God who was going ahead of the camp of Israel departed and went to their rear, and the pillar of cloud departed from their van and stood in the rear of them. So it came in between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel. On the one hand it proved to be a cloud together with darkness. On the other hand it kept lighting up the night. And this group did not come near that group all night long. Moses now stretched his hand out over the sea; and Jehovah began making the sea go back by a strong east wind all night long and converting the sea basin into dry ground and the waters being split apart. At length the sons of Israel went through the midst of the sea on dry land…” (NWT)
The Apostle Paul identified the angel that followed them through the Red Sea at 1 Corinthians 10:1-4:
“Now I do not want you to be ignorant, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and all passed through the sea and all got baptized into Moses by means of the cloud and of the sea; and all ate the same spiritual food and all drank the same spiritual drink. For they used to drink from the spiritual rock-mass that followed them, and that rock-mass meant the Christ.” (NWT)POINT 2
Interestingly, the angel that had been assigned to Israel is named “Michael” in other passages. (See Exodus 23:20-23; Daniel 10:21; Daniel 12:1.)POINT 3
The Apostle Paul made this comment:
“And what was a trial to you in my flesh, you did not treat with contempt or spit at in disgust; but you received me like an angel of God, like Christ Jesus”. (Galatians 4:14) (NWT)
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
“and my trial that [is] in my flesh ye did not despise nor reject, but as a messenger of God ye did receive me — as Christ Jesus;”
There is certainly the sense here that being received like an angel was the same as being received like Jesus Christ. Doesn’t this suggest then that Jesus Christ is an angel, albeit an exceptional one?POINT 4
The Septuagint translation of Isaiah 9:6, 7 next commands our attention. Both Jews and Christians alike understand that Isaiah 9:6, 7 is a prophecy about the Messiah, the Christ. Translator Lancelot C.L. Brenton rendered the Septuagint verses:
“For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great co
unsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him. His government shall be great, and of his peace there is no end…”
The phrase “Messenger of great counsel” translates the Greek “M?
?? ??? ?” which is also translated “Angel of great counsel”. This inference may be more than suggestive.POINT 5
In the highly symbolic book of Revelation, chapter nine depicts the disciplining of individuals who “have not the seal of God in their forehead.” Those administering the discipline are said to have “a King over them, which is the angel of the bottomless pit, whose name in the Hebrew tongue is Abaddon, but in the Greek tongue hath his name Apollyon”. (vss. 4, 11) (King James Version). Who is this angel who is a over subjects of God performing his will? We know that Jesus is called a King in heaven and so too Jehovah and humans that are resurrected to heaven. Clearly, Jehovah is not the “angel who is a King” and the heavenbound resurrected humans are not angels at all. Doesn’t this leave Jesus as the likely candidate? (Jeremiah 10:10; Zechariah 14:9; Psalm 2:6-8; Luke 1:32,33; Daniel 7:13, 14, 27; and 2 Timothy 2:11,12)And here are some additional scriptural reasons for coming to this conclusion:
WHO IS MICHAEL THE ARCHANGEL?
The spirit creature called Michael is not mentioned often in the Bible. However, when he is referred to, he is in action. In the book of Daniel, Michael is battling wicked angels; in the letter of Jude, he is disputing with Satan; and in Revelation, he is waging war with the Devil and his demons. By defending Jehovah’s rulership and fighting God’s enemies, Michael lives up to the meaning of his name–“Who is Like God?”
He is referred to as “the great prince who has charge of your [Daniel’s] people,” and as “the archangel.” (Dan. 10:13; 12:1; Jude 9, RS)
At times, individuals are known by more than one name. For example, the patriarch Jacob is also known as Israel, and the apostle Peter, as Simon (Gen 49:1,2; Mat 10:2) God has also changed peoples names when they take on new roles–Abram to Abraham for example. Sarai to Sarah, another. Likewise, the Bible indicates that Michael is another name for Jesus Christ, before and after his life on earth. There is no statement in the Bible that categorically identifies Michael the archangel as Jesus. There are several points that all strongly imply it however.POINT 6
JESUS CALLS OUT WITH AN ARCHANGELS VOICE.
Commenting on one aspect of the Second Coming of Jesus Christ, Apostle Paul wrote:
“because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God's trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. (1 Thessalonians 4:16) (NWT)
If Jesus is not the archangel in this event and he is superior to the archangel, then why would he perform this act as though he was someone of lower rank? Wouldn’t he be using an archangel’s voice because he is an archangel?
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?
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.
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)
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, the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ.POINT 6B
Also, notice the second half of 1 Thess 4:16: “because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God's trumpet and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.”
Now let’s look at Jesus’ words:
““Most truly I say to YOU, The hour is coming, and it is now, when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who have given heed will live. For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to do judging, because Son of man he is. Do not marvel at this, because the hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out, those who did good things to a resurrection of life, those who practiced vile things to a resurrection of judgment.” (John 5:25-29)
A comparison of these two scriptures seems to indicate that Jesus and Michael are the same person.POINT 6C
For those who said: ‘It was just an archangels voice accompanying Jesus, but it wasn’t Jesus himself who had the commanding call.’ John 5:25,28 solves the problem: “the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God.” So in 1 thessalonians, its the archangel's voice, but in John 5, it is the voice of the Son of God! One cannot be wrong and the other right. Michael the Archangel must be Jesus! In both Thessalonians and John we see that the voice causes the resurrection of life. The dead in Christ will rise when they hear His voice! This is the same event and Jesus and Michael must be the same person.POINT 7
“ARCHANGEL” IS NEVER FOUND IN PLURAL IN SCRIPTURE.
Interestingly, the expression “archangel” is only found in the singular, never 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 angels.
Adding to this, I would like to say that some like to use the phrase: “Archangels” or speak of them in plural. The Bible never does this. Perhaps they are taking this belief from the The book of Enoch, a non-biblical book, which while it may be useful for historical purposes, also contains falsehoods, as even supporters of it have stated, and it is not part of the inspired Word of God.
On this point, a website that was trying to refute Jehovah’s Witnesses stated:
“Michael is the only angel called “the archangel” (Jude 1:9) and he is called “the” archangel as if he were the only one. In this one matter, I agree with the adversary [Jehovah’s Witnesses]. The prefix “arch” means main, chief, or principal. I do not know how many chief angels there are. One seems enough. The teaching that there are other archangels is traditional. It is not directly taught in scripture.”POINT 8
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 a
nd 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)
REVELATION 12:7
“And war broke out in heaven: Mícha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled”
REVELATION 19:11-14
“And I saw the heaven opened, and, look! a white horse. And the one seated upon it is called Faithful and True, and he judges and carries on war in righteousness. His eyes are a fiery flame, and upon his head are many diadems. He has a name written that no one knows but he himself, and he is arrayed with an outer garment sprinkled with blood, and the name he is called is The Word of God. Also, the armies that were in heaven were following him on white horsesand they were clothed in white, clean, fine linen.”
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.
Jesus himself is the one who leads the armies of Heaven to judge and make war against Satan! Which brings us to our next point.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.POINT 10
JESUS IS COMMISSIONED TO DESTROY ALL THE NATIONS AT ARMAGEDDON
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.
Yes, there are other angelic creatures of high rank, such as seraphs and cherubs. (Genesis 3:24; Isaiah 6:2) Yet, the Scriptures point to the resurrected Jesus Christ as the chief of all angels—Michael the archangel.Having considered both some historical and scriptural data, it ought to be clear that the argument that Jesus is or was the principal angel, even Michael the archangel, is not without some weight and ought not be discounted as untrue.
Please read it all.
david.
As always, there is interpretation and there is translation. If you really want to know what the truth is, then you better be prepared to dig deep. Dont be surprised if you find the truth in the bottem of the garbage can. And dont accept the first good answer you get. Also, if you are not the kind of person who says to themself, I want to know what the truth is, EVEN if it does not please me; then you will never find the real truth. There is only Gods truth for a TRUE christian, and that requires a spirit of discernment.
Here it is Nick. If it is false, it should be easy to tear apart or explain the questions I ask in the post above.
Hi david,
If what you teach is not based on scripture
and our test for truth is comparison with scripture
then all we can do is warn you about teaching from outside scripture
and appeal to you to restrict your teaching to what can be proven from scripture.Quote If what you teach is not based on scripture
and our test for truth is comparison with scripture
then all we can do is warn you about teaching from outside scripture
and appeal to you to restrict your teaching to what can be proven from scripture.hmm. I counted zero scriptures in your last few posts about this topic.
I just checked my post. It has about 60 scriptural references in it.
Yet, I am the one “outside” of scripture. Nice.david
Hi david,
60 scriptures that do not state what you need them to state to be able to stand on scripture in your teaching
are not really relevant to this subject are they?
Try 2 Jn 92 JOHN 9
“Everyone that pushes ahead and does not remain in the teaching of the Christ does not have God. He that does remain in this teaching is the one that has both the Father and the Son.”Well that doesn't say anything about Jesus not being Michael. It says to remain in the teaching of Christ. We are trying to determine if my belief about Michael is in the teaching of Christ.
Nick, you're not being able to or at least not wanting to refute anything I say makes me wonder.You accuse me of being unscriptural. I have many scriptural reasons for believing this.
Nick, if you could just truthfully answer this: Have you read my post above? Have you even considered anything it says? I've added several new lines of evidence that I didn't mention before. Did you take note of that? Or did you simply reject this because it's not what you presently believe?
Nick, until you look at my post, stop accusing me of not standing on scripture. Previously, in this thread you repeatedly stated that there are many archangels. Which scriptrue in the Bible says that?
dave
The following statements are true:
“Jack went into the red house and met a man.
Jamie was alone in the red house at that time.”Nick, who did Jack meet?
–Although it doesn't specifically say, reason and logic tell us that Jack met Jamie.
–Further, although it doesn't tell us specifically, we know Jamie is a man.Logic and the ability to reason on what the statment say, make it abundantly clear that Jamie is a man. Now, YOU could say that it doesn't say these things. I'm going beyond what is written. WRONG. I'm reasoning on what is written. I'm using logic to put the pieces together. And the pieces fit the best when you realize that Jesus and Michael are the same. If you don't put that together, you'll have problems to deal with, such as ones I've raised in my post. Problems and questions which you prefer to look away from.
Nick, seriously, please answer, based soley on those two sentences, who did Jack meet? Or do you really not know?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
