Is Jesus Michael the Archangel?

[Reiku]

True. Real nonsense. Not the rational evidence like virgin birth, bringing back zombies from the dead, drinking blood at the Last supper and changing some bread into more bread....when he could have turned it into Pizza and beer.

Those JWs sure spout nonsense!

Right, you were that vague, i had to coment back to this in parts.

''True. Real nonsense. Not the rational evidence like virgin birth, bringing back zombies from the dead, drinking blood at the Last supper and changing some bread into more bread.''

Sarcasm doesn't make anyone. Not even a troll-wanna-be like you.

''when he could have turned it into Pizza and beer.''

Oh... that's very clever... give yourself two pats on the back.

 

[oreodont]

Jesus didn't turn wine into blood? :bugeye: Walk on water? : Resurrect from the dead? and you don't consider that nonsense but somethong about pretend angels is? ::

Ha! Ha! so much for your rational thought....or lack of it. Next thing you'll tell us Jesus is coming back for a rematch with the anti-christ. Ha! Ha! but some claim by Jehovah witness is 'greater' nonsense?!? Ha! Ha!

 

[Photizo]

I agree. Not many religions these days implore their followers to go from home to home to spread the Word. But in all honesty, I've always wondered WHY they try to recruit followers, as one of the tenets of their belief is that only 144,000 people will be allowed into heaven. Perhaps they have their rationalizations, but empirically speaking, the fewer your numbers the better your chances.

I have always found them to be very kind and thoughtful people, and do know the scripture pretty well.

As I understand it, for the rank and file, heaven is not attainable and is, as you say, strictly for the 144,000. Much of the NT for them then simply doesn't apply...What they are working toward/hoping for is to be counted worthy to live upon a renewed earth--and this is the point of all their end time emphasis...letting people know of its soon appearing all the while trying to make converts who will join them upon this renewed earth.

 

[Learned Hand]

As I understand it, for the rank and file, heaven is not attainable and is, as you say, strictly for the 144,000. Much of the NT for them then simply doesn't apply...What they are working toward/hoping for is to be counted worthy to live upon a renewed earth--and this is the point of all their end time emphasis...letting people know of its soon appearing all the while trying to make converts who will join them upon this renewed earth.

Very interesting. Sounds a bit Miltonic (e.g. "a heaven on earth"), but plausible. Do you know why they stick to the 144,000 number by chance?

 

[Photizo]

Very interesting. Sounds a bit Miltonic (e.g. "a heaven on earth"), but plausible. Do you know why they stick to the 144,000 number by chance?

Hmmm. "Why they stick to" it? Because those at the top persist in approaching the Bible according to the dictates of a spiritual authority other than the Spirit of Truth (God). "Where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty"...their organization is certainly not characterized by liberty, but rather bondage. Without the Spirit of Truth, they will remain 'stuck'/in bondage to their many errors.

 

[Saquist]

I had an arguement today with some Jehovah's Witnesses.

They stated to me that Jesus Christ was Michael the Archangel.

I protested. I told them they were talking nonesense. Then they read me out a passage from revelation saying the The Lamb would descend from Heaven with an Archangels Voice.

I told them that revelation was a riddle. That only [some] of it was literal, and the rest cryptic.
I told them that it could mean that Jesus would be followed by Archangels singing His praise... In fact, it could have meant a lot of things.

They gave some other evidence, which was lame.

I said its impossible. I gave them a situation in the Bible.

When John, (in the end of revelation) - 22 i think, or maybe just before it, goes to bow down to the angel (probably an archangel)... but the angel tells him that he should not, because he was nothing more than a servant of God too.
Now if its true, then why does the Bible clearly state that all knees will bow to Jesus>? Isaiah somewhere

If this was the case, then Jesus to would have been nothing more than another servant of God, and would have not been given that type of authority.

Does anyone agree?

Then i proposed a second arguement to counter them. I gave them John1:1 to consider, only to find again that John1:1 says, ''In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was [a] god,'' with a small letter g.
In King James, indeed most of the Bibles in the world have ''Was God.''

Is their religion blasphemous?

I do agree with Jesus being the Arch angel...And archangles call is one of authority and there is only one archangel. When revelations describes Jesus as the lamb, the prince of peace, a warrior king and many other titles it describing just how versatile Jesus Christ really is in his role of savior.

After all Michael means...One who is like God.
The name makes it sort of obvious.
Michael held back two demons or Princes in the book of Daniel where Gabriel could not even get past one demon to deliver god's inspired expressions to Daniel.

As for the John 1:1 scripture. That too is true.

The Greek word which looks like " Ae'ov" is the Greek word for GOD or the only true GOD. While another similar word "Ae'oc" means a lesser god. Both words are used in the scripture John 1:1.

The article "a" in english is appropriately placed infront of "god" and the use of lower case letters indicate that the use of the word refers to a lesser or false god. In Greek there is no such article. No where in the Greek translation will there be found a propper translation for the article "a". Like spanish and other Latin languages somethings are implied by the word itself...

Take for instance...Bailamous It means WE Dance. But the "we" is understood by the altered suffix applied to the word. The word "God" is or a god has the same significance as

" Ae'ov" THE God.
"Ae'oc" a God. Which is also used to describe Satan the Devil.

 

[Photizo]

An addendum...

I had an arguement today with some Jehovah's Witnesses.

They stated to me that Jesus Christ was Michael the Archangel.

I protested. I told them they were talking nonesense.

You were correct. Consistent interpretation of God's Word will never yield such blasphemous nonsense. It is ridiculous on its face. Consider this rhetorical question asked by the author of the Book of Hebrews 'speaking' (writing) by the Holy Spirit:

Hebrews 1:5-8... For to which of the angels did God ever say, You are my Son, today I have begotten you? Or again, I will be to Him a Father,and He shall be to Me a Son?

Answer: None of them, which includes Michael.

And again, when He brings the Firstborn into the world, He says, Let all God's angels worship Him.

As Michael is an angel, he would be included in the "all". A distinction is made/is obvious between Jesus Christ and Michael. We are to worship God alone...the Bible indicates this repeatedly and here is but one example:

And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God...

Continuing with the passage from Hebrews...

Of the angels he says, He makes His angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire. But of the Son he says, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

Again, the distinction between the two individuals is obvious, but not only that a distinction is made between classes... in other words, according to how each are respectively addressed, angels are obviously subordinates doing God's bidding, whereas when addressing the Son, God speaks to an equal. This is important because in Isaiah God specifically states I, even I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me...And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. No other God and no savior besides YHWH, ergo...

Furthermore, consider this...looking at Matthew 4:10, you will read of Jesus rebuking Satan and commanding him to leave...in the book of Jude one reads of Michael refusing to rebuke Satan, deferring to the Lord. Not only that, but again, a distinction is made between Jesus and Michael by Jude...this is evident according to the normal sense of Jude's epistle.

Throughout the Gospels you see Jesus demonstrating authority over Satan and his henchman...these henchman even know who Jesus is...do they refer to Him as Michael? No.

One would expect a teaching of such import (Jesus=Michael the Archangel) to have been clearly laid out by Jesus Himself in the Gospels, and then re-iterated by the authors of the Epistles (As is the case with His Deity). However, such is not the case here, instead this 'teaching' must wrested from the Scriptures--and that with great difficulty--defying both basic interpretive principles and simple common sense (for example, Scripture interprets Scripture...in other words, let the text 'speak' for Itself and from there recognise logical implications...rather than impose upon it a preconceived idea [without basis in fact] and seek/'work' to have the text agree with you come hell or highwater).

 

[Reiku]

Jesus didn't turn wine into blood? :bugeye: Walk on water? : Resurrect from the dead? and you don't consider that nonsense but somethong about pretend angels is? ::

Ha! Ha! so much for your rational thought....or lack of it. Next thing you'll tell us Jesus is coming back for a rematch with the anti-christ. Ha! Ha! but some claim by Jehovah witness is 'greater' nonsense?!? Ha! Ha!

Two points that will help you understand your discrepency.

1. I am a christian-scientist. I don't hold to conventional rules or theology.

2. The Bible is a metaphor... through-and-through.

Jesus in conflict with his antipartner, is much like the big crunch itself. The negative force and the positive forces are brought to a critical point in spacetime; perhaps a supersingularity.
Now i'm not saying this is what the Bible intended, but it holds some merit, because both bibles speak of a specific end in the universe, which itself is an invariant of time.

And all those philosophers at those times, ancient Hebrew and Samarian scholars who had travelled the world, seen the sea's, observed the sunrise about cold mountain peaks, those who knew about medicines, religion, military, tax collectors, carpentry ect.ect. just shows us that these writers went into great detail, and present evidence suggests it would have taken a group of seven of these ancient hypothetical scholars a lifetime to write the entire torah with materials they had, because those materials where very hard to get, since hardly a handful could write and read.

The Bible then should really be paid with some more respect. True that we read only a holograph of the original papyrus, but the general concept is there. There are i think, if my memory serves me well, around 15,000 untranslated words in the Bible.
The first untranslated word can be found in Genesis 1:1... It's 3rd word says ''Eth'', so it would read, ''In the beginning God Eth created the heavens and the earth.'' - remember, they read from left to right, and we are working with Hebrew words here. So the Bible is incomplete with universal knowledge...
So for the Christians a paradox comes. It says in the Bible that Gods words would be heard by every ear or ever child, and only then would the Lamb return for the second time. But then, if we are not hearing the true word, how does this now hold?

 

[Reiku]

Also, Jesus is King of Kings... Michael is the Prince of Princes... big difference.

 

[Reiku]

An addendum...



You were correct. Consistent interpretation of God's Word will never yield such blasphemous nonsense. It is ridiculous on its face. Consider this rhetorical question asked by the author of the Book of Hebrews 'speaking' (writing) by the Holy Spirit:

Hebrews 1:5-8... For to which of the angels did God ever say, You are my Son, today I have begotten you? Or again, I will be to Him a Father,and He shall be to Me a Son?

Answer: None of them, which includes Michael.

And again, when He brings the Firstborn into the world, He says, Let all God's angels worship Him.

As Michael is an angel, he would be included in the "all". A distinction is made/is obvious between Jesus Christ and Michael. We are to worship God alone...the Bible indicates this repeatedly here is but one example:

And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God...

Continuing with the passage from Hebrews...

Of the angels he says, He makes His angels winds, and his ministers a flame of fire. But of the Son he says, Your throne, O God, is forever and ever, the scepter of uprightness is the scepter of Your kingdom.

Again, the distinction between the two individuals is obvious, but not only that a distinction is made between classes... in other words, according to how each are respectively addressed, angels are obviously subordinates doing God's bidding, whereas when addressing the Son, God speaks to an equal. This is important because in Isaiah God specifically states I, even I, am the LORD, And there is no savior besides Me...And there is no other God besides Me, A righteous God and a Savior; There is none except Me. No other God and no savior besides YHWH, ergo...

Furthermore, consider this...looking at Matthew 4:10, you will read of Jesus rebuking Satan and commanding him to leave...in the book of Jude one reads of Michael refusing to rebuke Satan, deferring to the Lord. Not only that, but again, a distinction is made between Jesus and Michael by Jude...this is evident according to the normal sense of the Jude's epistle.

Throughout the Gospels you see Jesus demonstrating authority over Satan and his henchman...these henchman even know who Jesus is...do they refer to Him as Michael? No.

One would expect a teaching of such import (Jesus=Michael the Archangel) to have been clearly laid out by Jesus Himself in the Gospels, and, then re-iterated by the authors of the Epistles (As is the case with His Deity). However, such is not the case here, instead this 'teaching' must wrested from the Scriptures--and that with great difficulty--defying both basic interpretive principles and simple common sense (for example, Scripture interprets Scripture...in other words, let the text 'speak' for Itself and from there recognise logical implications...rather than impose upon it a preconceived idea [without basis in fact] and seek/'work' to have the text agree with you come hell or highwater).

I know of this work, and you have written it well. It never crossed my mind to recite these verses

 

[Saquist]

Hebrews 1:5-8

For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father”? And again: “I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son”? 6 But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all God’s angels do obeisance to him.”

This would seem to set an absolute.
But. If you use the scripture in this context we come to a literal contradiction because Moses who was directed by God to write Genesis calls the angels that descend and take the form of man to be Son's of the True God.

Found here at Genesis 6:1-2
 Now it came about that when men started to grow in numbers on the surface of the ground and daughters were born to them, then the sons of the [true] God began to notice

Obviously we want to avoid interpretations that contradict the scriptures. Hence knowing that God approves of Moses calling the angels "Sons of the true God" must imply that Hebrews is refering to "SON" in a more personal fashion. How personal?

There is a singling out that applies to Hebrews 1:5-8. It implies a personal connection. That connection is also expressed in Col: 1:15 why it is SO personal.

God made Jesus Directly. While Jesus created EVERYTHING else.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible,

As you might expect that would be a special bond.
This scripture is effectively illistrating that God is the Father of Jesus Christ. More than that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and is no mere angel or no mere son of God...but THE SON OF GOD.

Additional:

The prefix “arch,” meaning “chief” or “principal,” implies that there is only one archangel, the chief angel; in the Scriptures, “archangel” is never found in the plural. First Thessalonians 4:16, in speaking of the preeminence of the archangel and the authority of his office, does so in reference to the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ: “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.” It is, therefore, not without significance that the only name directly associated with the word “archangel” is Michael.

Note 2:

Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God

So God and Jesus may be equal in purpose they are not equal in authority. The Head ship of all things is even laid out in the Christian Greek Scriptures. God over Jesus, Jesus over the congregation, Man over woman in authority.


Note 3:

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 God's (Yah weh or Jehovah's) appointed King,

Note 4

The book of Revelation (12:7, 10,*12) specifically mentions Michael in connection with the establishment of God’s Kingdom and links this event with trouble for the earth: “And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled. And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: ‘Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down . . . On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea.’”

Jesus Christ is later depicted as leading the heavenly armies in war against the nations of the earth. (Re 19:11-16) This would mean a period of distress for them, which would logically be included in the “time of distress” that is associated with Michael’s standing up. (Da 12:1) That would be the correlation between Daniel and Revelations.

Note 5:
There is more even on the topic of the name which no one knows ( refering to the name other than Michael)

“‘Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations: To him that conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white pebble, and upon the pebble a new name written which no one knows except the one receiving it.’

These are some of the tools you'll need to make the decision whether there is credibility in the assertion of who Michael is and does his role represent that of an angel or the authority that is Christ Son of God.

 

[SetiAlpha6]

Yes, but there are many among them who are very nice people...it must break God's heart to see so many who think they are serving Him yet so deceived...they are factory produced automatons...taught to parrot teachings, canned presentations, answers etc from special books and literature. They are drilled in strict discipline along pre channeled thought patterns regarding interpretations of a deliberately altered bible...deliberately altered in accordance with/to support those same interpretations--which is therefore no bible at all--originating at the upper levels of the organization...Sad...many are so sincere, but, sincerely wrong.

This is actually a fairly good description of almost the entire Christian faith, only not all of them are very nice people. The rest of it is pretty universal in scope.

Nice job!

 

[Photizo]

This is actually a fairly good description of almost the entire Christian faith, only not all of them are very nice people. The rest of it is pretty universal in scope.

Nice job!

"Nice job"?...No, nice try... what I described as characterizing them is certainly not "a fairly good description of almost the entire Christian faith". IMO, what passes for 'Christianity' in this country (USA) is put to shame by the selfless dedication to learning and witnessing exemplified by many in that organization.

 

[Adstar]

I had an arguement today with some Jehovah's Witnesses.

They stated to me that Jesus Christ was Michael the Archangel.

I protested. I told them they were talking nonesense. Then they read me out a passage from revelation saying the The Lamb would descend from Heaven with an Archangels Voice.

I told them that revelation was a riddle. That only [some] of it was literal, and the rest cryptic.
I told them that it could mean that Jesus would be followed by Archangels singing His praise... In fact, it could have meant a lot of things.

They gave some other evidence, which was lame.

I said its impossible. I gave them a situation in the Bible.

When John, (in the end of revelation) - 22 i think, or maybe just before it, goes to bow down to the angel (probably an archangel)... but the angel tells him that he should not, because he was nothing more than a servant of God too.
Now if its true, then why does the Bible clearly state that all knees will bow to Jesus>? Isaiah somewhere

If this was the case, then Jesus to would have been nothing more than another servant of God, and would have not been given that type of authority.

Does anyone agree?

Then i proposed a second arguement to counter them. I gave them John1:1 to consider, only to find again that John1:1 says, ''In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was [a] god,'' with a small letter g.
In King James, indeed most of the Bibles in the world have ''Was God.''

Is their religion blasphemous?

Yes their religion is blasphemous.

All Praise The Ancient Of Days

 

[Reiku]

Hebrews 1:5-8

For example, to which one of the angels did he ever say: “You are my son; I, today, I have become your father”? And again: “I myself shall become his father, and he himself will become my son”? 6 But when he again brings his Firstborn into the inhabited earth, he says: “And let all God’s angels do obeisance to him.”

This would seem to set an absolute.
But. If you use the scripture in this context we come to a literal contradiction because Moses who was directed by God to write Genesis calls the angels that descend and take the form of man to be Son's of the True God.

Found here at Genesis 6:1-2
 Now it came about that when men started to grow in numbers on the surface of the ground and daughters were born to them, then the sons of the [true] God began to notice

Obviously we want to avoid interpretations that contradict the scriptures. Hence knowing that God approves of Moses calling the angels "Sons of the true God" must imply that Hebrews is refering to "SON" in a more personal fashion. How personal?

There is a singling out that applies to Hebrews 1:5-8. It implies a personal connection. That connection is also expressed in Col: 1:15 why it is SO personal.

God made Jesus Directly. While Jesus created EVERYTHING else.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible,

As you might expect that would be a special bond.
This scripture is effectively illistrating that God is the Father of Jesus Christ. More than that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and is no mere angel or no mere son of God...but THE SON OF GOD.

Additional:

The prefix “arch,” meaning “chief” or “principal,” implies that there is only one archangel, the chief angel; in the Scriptures, “archangel” is never found in the plural. First Thessalonians 4:16, in speaking of the preeminence of the archangel and the authority of his office, does so in reference to the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ: “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.” It is, therefore, not without significance that the only name directly associated with the word “archangel” is Michael.

Note 2:

Keep this mental attitude in YOU that was also in Christ Jesus, who, although he was existing in God’s form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God

So God and Jesus may be equal in purpose they are not equal in authority. The Head ship of all things is even laid out in the Christian Greek Scriptures. God over Jesus, Jesus over the congregation, Man over woman in authority.


Note 3:

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 God's (Yah weh or Jehovah's) appointed King,

Note 4

The book of Revelation (12:7, 10,*12) specifically mentions Michael in connection with the establishment of God’s Kingdom and links this event with trouble for the earth: “And war broke out in heaven: Michael and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled. And I heard a loud voice in heaven say: ‘Now have come to pass the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ, because the accuser of our brothers has been hurled down . . . On this account be glad, you heavens and you who reside in them! Woe for the earth and for the sea.’”

Jesus Christ is later depicted as leading the heavenly armies in war against the nations of the earth. (Re 19:11-16) This would mean a period of distress for them, which would logically be included in the “time of distress” that is associated with Michael’s standing up. (Da 12:1) That would be the correlation between Daniel and Revelations.

Note 5:
There is more even on the topic of the name which no one knows ( refering to the name other than Michael)

“‘Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations: To him that conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white pebble, and upon the pebble a new name written which no one knows except the one receiving it.’

These are some of the tools you'll need to make the decision whether there is credibility in the assertion of who Michael is and does his role represent that of an angel or the authority that is Christ Son of God.

''This would seem to set an absolute.
But. If you use the scripture in this context we come to a literal contradiction because Moses who was directed by God to write Genesis calls the angels that descend and take the form of man to be Son's of the True God..''

Thus are also the fallen ones written in just before the flood ''The Nephilim...'' or 'Sons of Anak,'' of the ''Sons of Giants''... angels came down to mate with the daughters of men... they where called the Sons of God. We too are Sons of God. Jesus was a Son of Man, under being then a Son of God who was paradoxically God Himeself.

You are erreneoustoday, strange.

''Now it came about that when men started to grow in numbers on the surface of the ground and daughters were born to them, then the sons of the [true] God began to notice.''

True, as being not ORIGINALLY the Sons of the False God.

 

[Reiku]

''God made Jesus Directly. While Jesus created EVERYTHING else.
He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; 16 because by means of him all [other] things were created in the heavens and upon the earth, the things visible and the things invisible,

As you might expect that would be a special bond.
This scripture is effectively illistrating that God is the Father of Jesus Christ. More than that Jesus is the only begotten Son of God and is no mere angel or no mere son of God...but THE SON OF GOD.''

And, Jesus was Alpha... He created all things ''Rev:22'' -


And who then was God talking to in the first self?

''And WE shall create man in OUR own image...?'' Jesus of course.

God=Jesus

Jesus=Mass and God=Energy, so it was the Bible to correctly identify

E=M[c^2]

 

[Reiku]

''Jesus Christ is later depicted as leading the heavenly armies in war against the nations of the earth. (Re 19:11-16) This would mean a period of distress for them, which would logically be included in the “time of distress” that is associated with Michael’s standing up. (Da 12:1) That would be the correlation between Daniel and Revelations.

Note 5:
There is more even on the topic of the name which no one knows ( refering to the name other than Michael)''


And Jesus[SAW] satan fall from heaven like lightning whilst Michael was THE ONE who cast Thee Out.

 

[Reiku]

''“‘Let the one who has an ear hear what the spirit says to the congregations: To him that conquers I will give some of the hidden manna, and I will give him a white pebble, and upon the pebble a new name written which no one knows except the one receiving it.’

These are some of the tools you'll need to make the decision whether there is credibility in the assertion of who Michael is and does his role represent that of an angel or the authority that is Christ Son of God. ''

Which is blasphemous.

 

[Saquist]

''This would seem to set an absolute.
But. If you use the scripture in this context we come to a literal contradiction because Moses who was directed by God to write Genesis calls the angels that descend and take the form of man to be Son's of the True God..''

Thus are also the fallen ones written in just before the flood ''The Nephilim...'' or 'Sons of Anak,'' of the ''Sons of Giants''... angels came down to mate with the daughters of men... they where called the Sons of God. We too are Sons of God. Jesus was a Son of Man, under being then a Son of God who was paradoxically God Himeself.

You are erreneoustoday, strange.

''Now it came about that when men started to grow in numbers on the surface of the ground and daughters were born to them, then the sons of the [true] God began to notice.''

True, as being not ORIGINALLY the Sons of the False God.

I'm sorry but I'm not following you at all. Could you provide more content to explain your position further?

Additionally...
If it is blashemous to refer to any other as Son of God. Then this rationale would also be applied to human beings as well. I had to confirm it but I did indeed find that in the lineage of the Line of the seed...Adam at the very begining is called "Son of God"...Certainly then if an angel is blasphemous then a fleshly human is the ultimately "SIN" in high irreverence.

That is but two examples they don't seem to apply blasphemy to these much lower servants. I think that is because God sees us all as his children. Do you really think that with all the occasions in the bible that refer to us and God being alike in emotion and personality (with us humans) that a truely loving and caring God wouldn't be proud to have his faithful servants call him (The Almighty) our Father.

I don't think that is as bad as some would have us believe. Remember the Pharises though similarly. That Jesus proclaiming himself as God's Son was blasphemy. How wrong were they. We have the same scrolls they do. Jesus called them "Offspring of Vipers." They presumed to speak for God. I know I'm just as carefull as to not judge or call out blasphemy on that which hasn't been outline by scripture.

Additional, Additional:

Above I believe it was noted that there is a difference between Prince of Princes and King of Kings

I believe that is true...For a Prince will inherent The Kingom and the King Rules that Kingdom. If I recall correctly Jesus is to be the King and will rule over the Earth. The question is when will the Father hand that Kingdom over?

Learned Hand “

From Learned Hand
I have always found them to be very kind and thoughtful people, and do know the scripture pretty well.

I HAVE TOO.
I have several family members and friends who are Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Aventist, Catholic and Baptist and you know what? The JW's are the NICEST most peaceable people I've ever gotten to know. They absolutely refuse to go to war, and that's something I respect and they know more about the bible than anyone I've ever seen in my life.

Thus I asked them for a bit of info on this subject and they explained it so eloquently I doubt I relayed it propperly. I could only put down the information she gave me.

 

[Reiku]

''Then this rationale would also be applied to human beings as well''

But this must be wrong, since God had to become human, so the He could know what it was to be a human... I'm sure this is in the Bible somewhere.

I will read the rest soon.