Jesus and Michael

[JosyWales]

The key to understanding the prophisies concerning the Apocalypse, both in the Old and New Testament is the understanding that Jesus and Michael are two different people as per Zech 11. The first staff of Beauty being Jesus, as identified by Matthew in Matt 27:9, and the staff of Bands being Michael, who is to come during the Apocalypse to fight the Beast before the return of Jesus.

One more proof of this event is offered in Daniel 7 where it shows one like the son of man being brought before the Ancient of Days.

If you read the discription of the appearance and actions of the Ancient of Days and then read the discription of the appearance and actions of Jesus at His second coming, you find they are an exact match (Dan 7:9-12 and Rev 19:11-21)

Since you cant bring someone to stand before themselves, the son of man that is brought before the Ancient of Days cannot be Jesus, since the Ancient of Days is Jesus. This is a discription of Michael being brought before Jesus at the end of the Apocalypse for reward.

It is a shame that both in Daniel 7 (in reference to the son of man) and in Daniel 9 (in reference to the Messiah, which word for Messiah is actually Anointed One, as it is interpreted 36 other times in the Old Testament), people have switched Jesus for Michael. This is the main reason so many folks cannot see the simple thing I am trying to show them.

Once you understand this though, all the prophesies in Revelation about the Strong Angel (Rev 5:2) and the Mighty Angel that comes down from Heaven (Michael) and puts his feet o the earth and sea (the two witnesses) Rev 10 and again in Rev 18:21 (who is clearly not Jesus and no interpretation given today even has a clue as to who this is because of the misleading theories about Revelation and the Apocalypse), and many passages of similar nature as well, it all becomes clear and quite easy to understand.

It all fits together quite seemlessly and I dont even have to leave the Bible to show it to anyone. I dont have to assign arbitrary dates in the past or substitute what the Bible says with trying to assign symbolism that God does not direct anyone to do.

That, by the way, fits the definition of Occums Razor, which states: "When faced with multiple conflicting hypothosies, the one that makes the fewest assumptions is usually correct."

The only assumption I have to make is that the Bible means what it says. I dont have to put dates that I cant prove on anything and I dont have to assume symbolic substitution that I cant prove either. This makes my way different that all the others.

 

[Pelaides]

Did you ever consider the possibility,that "the ancient of days" is God,and "THe son of Man" is Jesus?

Angels are almost always identified as angels in the prophesys,and it is highly unlikely an angel would be given rule over a kingdom of humans(souls}.

 

[JosyWales]

In the prophicy of Dan 7, the actions of the Ancient of Days show this person coming at the end of the Apocalypse and throwing the Beast in the Fire. If you look at the two scriptures that I have provided, you will find that the Ancient of Days and Jesus are an exact match. Once you see this very obvious thing, especially since we know that God the Father does not show up in person untill after the 1000 year reign of Christ, it becomes impossible to think of the Ancient of Days as being Him.

In fact,whenever I show these scriptures to anyone, they automatically recognize the Ancient of Days as Jesus because it is absolutely appearant that this is correct. However, then I ask them who this Son of Man is and they again say that it is Jesus. At that point, when I ask them how both of these people can be Jesus, since one is being brought before the other one, they become confused and have no answer, but for some reason, they cannot seem to get past that both must be Jesus. It is a bit insane actually.

Also the main point of what I am showing you is that Michael will come to earth as a man, just as Jesus did. This is why in Dan 7, Michael is described as the Son of Man, indicating that he, just as Jesus did, will be born on the earth as a man so that he could physically fight the Beast during the Apocalypse and recieve promotion from God.

Jesus came and they expected Michael. As a result, they turned on Him. The same thing is going to happen in reverse, Michael will come, just as Jesus did, as a man, and they will also turn on him as well. You folks that that at worse, all you will have to worry about is the Beast, but it is more than that. You are going to have to make a choice between the Beast and Michael, and the Beast will be doing his best to present himself as your concept of what you have been taught a "religious person" is supposed to be. Michael, on the other hand, will most likely not fit into any of your preconcieved conventions, just as Jesus also did not. For example, I believe that the prophecy of the Seven Women taking hold of one man (The Branch) in Isa 4 is concerning Michael and relates to both Zech 1 concerning the Angel of the Lords standing among the Myrtle trees (since Queen Esthers Hebrew name meant Myrtle) and Rev 10 when the Mighty Angel comes down from heaven and the Seven Thunders respond to him.

Michael is an Angel who will be made into a man, come to earth to risk his life to fight the Beast, and will herald the Return of Jesus. He will be brought to the brink of destruction and will be saved by the coming of the Lord.

 

[Elle]

Hello Josy,
You said:
"In the prophicy of Dan 7, the actions of the Ancient of Days show this person coming at the end of the Apocalypse and throwing the Beast in the Fire. If you look at the two scriptures that I have provided, you will find that the Ancient of Days and Jesus are an exact match. Once you see this very obvious thing, especially since we know that God the Father does not show up in person untill after the 1000 year reign of Christ, it becomes impossible to think of the Ancient of Days as being Him."
God comes down with the New Jerusalem at the beginning of the 1000 years, not after. The first 1/2 of Revelation 20:5 has thrown more people off than you can imagine. The first 1/2 of Revelation 20:5 is a spurious passage never found in the oldest of manuscripts. Everyone thinks the final judgement is held then, it is not. The end comes when the nations who surround the beloved city, New Jerusalem, are devoured with fire. They had their chance during the 1000 years to learn to live by God's Law and they failed. GWTJ takes place at the beginning, not end. Here are 3 links if interested that hold the same belief I do in regards to the N.J. coming down at the start of the 1000 years. I have no intention of changing your beliefs, albeit it may sound like it, but you may want to look into a different perspective and then decide.
http://bibleanswersr...-jerusalem.html
http://gracethrufait...rusalem-appear/
http://www.holypop.c...s/New_Jerusalem

You said:
In fact,whenever I show these scriptures to anyone, they automatically recognize the Ancient of Days as Jesus because it is absolutely appearant that this is correct. However, then I ask them who this Son of Man is and they again say that it is Jesus. At that point, when I ask them how both of these people can be Jesus, since one is being brought before the other one, they become confused and have no answer, but for some reason, they cannot seem to get past that both must be Jesus. It is a bit insane actually.

I have to disagree the Ancient of days is not Yeshua. It is YHWH God.

Ancient of Days:
Daniel 7:9 - "I beheld till the thrones were cast down,(whose thrones, the thrones of the beast and the 10 kings) and the Ancient of days (YHWH) did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
Daniel 7:10 - A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened."
Daniel 7:22 - "Until the Ancient of days (YHWH) came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High (YHWH); and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom."
When do the saints possess the kingdom? During the 1000 years.

And...

Revelation 20:12 - "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God (Ancient of Days); and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."
The Ancient of days in Daniel 7:9 is God in Revelation 20:12, in both cases the "books are opened".

Coming in the Clouds:
Daniel 7:13-14 - "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, (Who comes with the clouds? Yeshua.) and came to the Ancient of days (YHWH), and they brought him (Yeshua) near before him (YHWH).
He is "like" the Son of Man, because he is no longer in a flesh and blood man body. John was seeing him as he appears in heaven.

Other Passages Showing Yeshua Returning with the Clouds:
1)Jesus [sup]2424[/sup] saith [sup]3004[/sup] unto him [sup]846[/sup], Thou [sup]4771[/sup] hast said [sup]2036[/sup]: nevertheless [sup]4133[/sup] I say [sup]3004[/sup] unto you [sup]5213[/sup], Hereafter [sup]737[/sup] [sup]575[/sup] shall ye see [sup]3700[/sup] the Son [sup]5207[/sup] of man [sup]444[/sup] sitting [sup]2521[/sup] on [sup]1537[/sup] the right hand[sup]1188[/sup] of power [sup]1411[/sup], and [sup]2532[/sup] coming (erchomai) [sup]2064[/sup] in [sup]1909[/sup] the clouds [sup]3507[/sup] of heaven [sup]3772[/sup].
2)And [sup]2532[/sup] then [sup]5119[/sup] shall they see [sup]3700[/sup] the Son [sup]5207[/sup] of man [sup]444[/sup]coming (erchomai) [sup]2064[/sup] in [sup]1722[/sup] the clouds [sup]3507[/sup] with [sup]3326[/sup] great [sup]4183[/sup] power [sup]1411[/sup]and [sup]2532[/sup] glory [sup]1391[/sup]

3)And [sup]1161[/sup] Jesus [sup]2424[/sup] said [sup]2036[/sup], I [sup]1473[/sup] am [sup]1510[/sup]: and [sup]2532[/sup] ye shall see[sup]3700[/sup] the Son [sup]5207[/sup] of man [sup]444[/sup] sitting [sup]2521[/sup] on [sup]1537[/sup] the right hand [sup]1188[/sup]of power [sup]1411[/sup], and [sup]2532[/sup] coming (erchomai) [sup]2064[/sup] in [sup]3326[/sup] the clouds [sup]3507[/sup]of heaven [sup]3772[/sup].
4)And [sup]2532[/sup] then [sup]5119[/sup] shall they see [sup]3700[/sup] the Son [sup]5207[/sup] of man [sup]444[/sup]coming (erchomai) [sup]2064[/sup] in [sup]1722[/sup] a cloud [sup]3507[/sup] with [sup]3326[/sup] power [sup]1411[/sup] and [sup]2532[/sup] great[sup]4183[/sup] glory [sup]1391[/sup].
5)And [sup]2532[/sup] I looked [sup]1492[/sup], and [sup]2532[/sup] behold [sup]2400[/sup] a white [sup]3022[/sup] cloud [sup]3507[/sup], and [sup]2532[/sup] upon [sup]1909[/sup] the cloud [sup]3507[/sup] [one] sat [sup]2521[/sup] like [sup]3664[/sup] unto the Son [sup]5207[/sup] of man [sup]444[/sup], having [sup]2192[/sup] on [sup]1909[/sup] his [sup]846[/sup] head [sup]2776[/sup] a golden[sup]5552[/sup] crown [sup]4735[/sup], and [sup]2532[/sup] in [sup]1722[/sup] his [sup]846[/sup] hand [sup]5495[/sup] a sharp [sup]3691[/sup] sickle[sup]1407[/sup].

You said:
"Also the main point of what I am showing you is that Michael will come to earth as a man, just as Jesus did. This is why in Dan 7, Michael is described as the Son of Man, indicating that he, just as Jesus did, will be born on the earth as a man so that he could physically fight the Beast during the Apocalypse and recieve promotion from God."
Where in scripture might I find this passage in regards to Michael coming to earth as a man? Where in the scripture does it say Michael will be born on earth? If Michael is up in heaven when he and the angels fight against Satan and his angels, who are cast out at the 7th trumpet, how did he get up there and back down here? Where does it say in scripture that Michael is going to physically fight the Beast?

You said:
"Jesus came and they expected Michael. As a result, they turned on Him. The same thing is going to happen in reverse, Michael will come, just as Jesus did, as a man, and they will also turn on him as well. You folks that that at worse, all you will have to worry about is the Beast, but it is more than that. You are going to have to make a choice between the Beast and Michael, and the Beast will be doing his best to present himself as your concept of what you have been taught a "religious person" is supposed to be. Michael, on the other hand, will most likely not fit into any of your preconcieved conventions, just as Jesus also did not. For example, I believe that the prophecy of the Seven Women taking hold of one man (The Branch) in Isa 4 is concerning Michael and relates to both Zech 1 concerning the Angel of the Lords standing among the Myrtle trees (since Queen Esthers Hebrew name meant Myrtle) and Rev 10 when the Mighty Angel comes down from heaven and the Seven Thunders respond to him."
Where in scripture does it say the Jews were expecting Michael and instead had to settle for Yeshua instead? Where in scripture does it say the reverse will happen and they will turn on Michael as well? The 7 women taking hold of one man are the 7 churches (woman is used to symbolize a church) taking hold of Yeshua. The 7 thunders tie in with John 12:29. Those who do not have ears to hear think it is thunder, whereas those who can hear say an angel spoke to them.

You said:
"Michael is an Angel who will be made into a man, come to earth to risk his life to fight the Beast, and will herald the Return of Jesus. He will be brought to the brink of destruction and will be saved by the coming of the Lord."
The only thing I agree with you here is that Michael is an angel, one of the 2 cherubims that stand beside God's throne, Gabriel being the other.

I'm not trying to be hard on you Josy, but you might want to think things through a little more. If I came off sounding harsh, it was not meant to be so.

• 
• [background=rgb(222, 222, 222)]0[/background]

• Quote
• MultiQuote

When I said: "Daniel 7:13-14 - "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, (Who comes with the clouds? Yeshua.) and came to the Ancient of days (YHWH), and they brought him (Yeshua) near before him (YHWH).
He is "like" the Son of Man, because he is no longer in a flesh and blood man body. John was seeing him as he appears in heaven."

I meant Daniel, not John.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Hello Josy,
You said:
"In the prophicy of Dan 7, the actions of the Ancient of Days show this person coming at the end of the Apocalypse and throwing the Beast in the Fire. If you look at the two scriptures that I have provided, you will find that the Ancient of Days and Jesus are an exact match. Once you see this very obvious thing, especially since we know that God the Father does not show up in person untill after the 1000 year reign of Christ, it becomes impossible to think of the Ancient of Days as being Him."
God comes down with the New Jerusalem at the beginning of the 1000 years, not after. The first 1/2 of Revelation 20:5 has thrown more people off than you can imagine. The first 1/2 of Revelation 20:5 is a spurious passage never found in the oldest of manuscripts. Everyone thinks the final judgement is held then, it is not. The end comes when the nations who surround the beloved city, New Jerusalem, are devoured with fire. They had their chance during the 1000 years to learn to live by God's Law and they failed. GWTJ takes place at the beginning, not end. Here are 3 links if interested that hold the same belief I do in regards to the N.J. coming down at the start of the 1000 years. I have no intention of changing your beliefs, albeit it may sound like it, but you may want to look into a different perspective and then decide.
http://bibleanswersr...-jerusalem.html
http://gracethrufait...rusalem-appear/
http://www.holypop.c...s/New_Jerusalem

You said:
In fact,whenever I show these scriptures to anyone, they automatically recognize the Ancient of Days as Jesus because it is absolutely appearant that this is correct. However, then I ask them who this Son of Man is and they again say that it is Jesus. At that point, when I ask them how both of these people can be Jesus, since one is being brought before the other one, they become confused and have no answer, but for some reason, they cannot seem to get past that both must be Jesus. It is a bit insane actually.

I have to disagree the Ancient of days is not Yeshua. It is YHWH God.

Ancient of Days:
Daniel 7:9 - "I beheld till the thrones were cast down,(whose thrones, the thrones of the beast and the 10 kings) and the Ancient of days (YHWH) did sit, whose garment was white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wool: his throne was like the fiery flame, and his wheels as burning fire.
Daniel 7:10 - A fiery stream issued and came forth from before him: thousand thousands ministered unto him, and ten thousand times ten thousand stood before him: the judgment was set, and the books were opened."
Daniel 7:22 - "Until the Ancient of days (YHWH) came, and judgment was given to the saints of the most High (YHWH); and the time came that the saints possessed the kingdom."
When do the saints possess the kingdom? During the 1000 years.

And...

Revelation 20:12 - "And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God (Ancient of Days); and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works."
The Ancient of days in Daniel 7:9 is God in Revelation 20:12, in both cases the "books are opened".

Coming in the Clouds:
Daniel 7:13-14 - "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, (Who comes with the clouds? Yeshua.) and came to the Ancient of days (YHWH), and they brought him (Yeshua) near before him (YHWH).
He is "like" the Son of Man, because he is no longer in a flesh and blood man body. John was seeing him as he appears in heaven.

Other Passages Showing Yeshua Returning with the Clouds:
1)Jesus [sup]2424[/sup] saith [sup]3004[/sup] unto him [sup]846[/sup], Thou [sup]4771[/sup] hast said [sup]2036[/sup]: nevertheless [sup]4133[/sup] I say [sup]3004[/sup] unto you [sup]5213[/sup], Hereafter [sup]737[/sup] [sup]575[/sup] shall ye see [sup]3700[/sup] the Son [sup]5207[/sup] of man [sup]444[/sup] sitting [sup]2521[/sup] on [sup]1537[/sup] the right hand[sup]1188[/sup] of power [sup]1411[/sup], and [sup]2532[/sup] coming (erchomai) [sup]2064[/sup] in [sup]1909[/sup] the clouds [sup]3507[/sup] of heaven [sup]3772[/sup].
2)And [sup]2532[/sup] then [sup]5119[/sup] shall they see [sup]3700[/sup] the Son [sup]5207[/sup] of man [sup]444[/sup]coming (erchomai) [sup]2064[/sup] in [sup]1722[/sup] the clouds [sup]3507[/sup] with [sup]3326[/sup] great [sup]4183[/sup] power [sup]1411[/sup]and [sup]2532[/sup] glory [sup]1391[/sup]

3)And [sup]1161[/sup] Jesus [sup]2424[/sup] said [sup]2036[/sup], I [sup]1473[/sup] am [sup]1510[/sup]: and [sup]2532[/sup] ye shall see[sup]3700[/sup] the Son [sup]5207[/sup] of man [sup]444[/sup] sitting [sup]2521[/sup] on [sup]1537[/sup] the right hand [sup]1188[/sup]of power [sup]1411[/sup], and [sup]2532[/sup] coming (erchomai) [sup]2064[/sup] in [sup]3326[/sup] the clouds [sup]3507[/sup]of heaven [sup]3772[/sup].
4)And [sup]2532[/sup] then [sup]5119[/sup] shall they see [sup]3700[/sup] the Son [sup]5207[/sup] of man [sup]444[/sup]coming (erchomai) [sup]2064[/sup] in [sup]1722[/sup] a cloud [sup]3507[/sup] with [sup]3326[/sup] power [sup]1411[/sup] and [sup]2532[/sup] great[sup]4183[/sup] glory [sup]1391[/sup].
5)And [sup]2532[/sup] I looked [sup]1492[/sup], and [sup]2532[/sup] behold [sup]2400[/sup] a white [sup]3022[/sup] cloud [sup]3507[/sup], and [sup]2532[/sup] upon [sup]1909[/sup] the cloud [sup]3507[/sup] [one] sat [sup]2521[/sup] like [sup]3664[/sup] unto the Son [sup]5207[/sup] of man [sup]444[/sup], having [sup]2192[/sup] on [sup]1909[/sup] his [sup]846[/sup] head [sup]2776[/sup] a golden[sup]5552[/sup] crown [sup]4735[/sup], and [sup]2532[/sup] in [sup]1722[/sup] his [sup]846[/sup] hand [sup]5495[/sup] a sharp [sup]3691[/sup] sickle[sup]1407[/sup].

You said:
"Also the main point of what I am showing you is that Michael will come to earth as a man, just as Jesus did. This is why in Dan 7, Michael is described as the Son of Man, indicating that he, just as Jesus did, will be born on the earth as a man so that he could physically fight the Beast during the Apocalypse and recieve promotion from God."
Where in scripture might I find this passage in regards to Michael coming to earth as a man? Where in the scripture does it say Michael will be born on earth? If Michael is up in heaven when he and the angels fight against Satan and his angels, who are cast out at the 7th trumpet, how did he get up there and back down here? Where does it say in scripture that Michael is going to physically fight the Beast?

You said:
"Jesus came and they expected Michael. As a result, they turned on Him. The same thing is going to happen in reverse, Michael will come, just as Jesus did, as a man, and they will also turn on him as well. You folks that that at worse, all you will have to worry about is the Beast, but it is more than that. You are going to have to make a choice between the Beast and Michael, and the Beast will be doing his best to present himself as your concept of what you have been taught a "religious person" is supposed to be. Michael, on the other hand, will most likely not fit into any of your preconcieved conventions, just as Jesus also did not. For example, I believe that the prophecy of the Seven Women taking hold of one man (The Branch) in Isa 4 is concerning Michael and relates to both Zech 1 concerning the Angel of the Lords standing among the Myrtle trees (since Queen Esthers Hebrew name meant Myrtle) and Rev 10 when the Mighty Angel comes down from heaven and the Seven Thunders respond to him."
Where in scripture does it say the Jews were expecting Michael and instead had to settle for Yeshua instead? Where in scripture does it say the reverse will happen and they will turn on Michael as well? The 7 women taking hold of one man are the 7 churches (woman is used to symbolize a church) taking hold of Yeshua. The 7 thunders tie in with John 12:29. Those who do not have ears to hear think it is thunder, whereas those who can hear say an angel spoke to them.

You said:
"Michael is an Angel who will be made into a man, come to earth to risk his life to fight the Beast, and will herald the Return of Jesus. He will be brought to the brink of destruction and will be saved by the coming of the Lord."
The only thing I agree with you here is that Michael is an angel, one of the 2 cherubims that stand beside God's throne, Gabriel being the other.

I'm not trying to be hard on you Josy, but you might want to think things through a little more. If I came off sounding harsh, it was not meant to be so.

• 
• [background=rgb(222,222,222)]0[/background]

• Quote
• MultiQuote

When I said: "Daniel 7:13-14 - "I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, (Who comes with the clouds? Yeshua.) and came to the Ancient of days (YHWH), and they brought him (Yeshua) near before him (YHWH).
He is "like" the Son of Man, because he is no longer in a flesh and blood man body. John was seeing him as he appears in heaven."

I meant Daniel, not John.

I'm curious, where do these doctrines about Michael come from? They aren't found in the scripture and there are no other reliable sources, so where are you getting them?
I was named after the archangel (supposedly, but I think that I was actually named after my mother's early heart throb) and I know that a lot of R.C. women named one of their male children Michael after the founding of the modern state of Israel. It seems just a little blasphemous to compare Jesus (Yashua) with Michael, even if Michael actually would be an angel sent into the world at some point as a man. Jesus has equality with God, this can't be said of any of the angels (read Hebrews for specific references to this fact.)
Daniel 12:1 refers to Michael, but there isn't anything in scripture to identify this individual with the angel of the same name and there is no reason to assume that they would be one and the same. Most people are aware of the translation of the name Michael, but take it as a statement. However, a faithful interpretation would make it an exclamation of praise, like a rhetorical question: Who is like God?!!! The answer is no one, except He who came to live among us and tabernacled in flesh, even our Lord Jesus the Christ. I tell you that Michael the angel and Michael the man will both bow before Jesus Christ, every knee shall bow of that in heaven and that on earth. It doesn't seem right to even say their names in the same breath as one would never have existed without the other. All the angels are created beings, Jesus however is not. The Michael of the book of Daniel is described in most english translations as a "prince," however the Hebrew is not that specific and the word may actually refer to an elder or even a steward. I'm happy with the latter translation as it makes me more comfortable with my own name. When you understand that sound doctrine is that which glorifies the Father through Jesus the Son, then the only way you can look at the biblical "Michael" is as a servant endowed with the Spirit of Christ, no more, no less. What does that make him in regard to us, another servant and brother in the Lord. I'm assuming that you, as professing Christians know the Lord and have been born again by His Spirit. If you haven't been, then I call you to repentance, to confess your sin before God and to believe on Him who came to satisfy God's judgment against sin for all who would receive Him, even the beloved, our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ, eternal Son of the eternal Father, risen from the dead and seated upon the throne of kingdoms, blessed be His name forever. Amen.
If an angel appeared as a leader of men and drew men to himself, that angel would be a servant of the adversary of God, and not of the Lord. That angel would bear the same guilt as Lucifer and be in rebellion to God, may the Lord forbit it. Amen.

 

[Elle]

Hi Michael,
I think you have me confused with Josy. I bolded his text in my post (the one above yours) and headed each part of his comments with "You said" and my comments are underneath his in regular text. The only time I bolded anything in my comments was when I was highlighting a scripture or certain words within a scripture. I never said Michael was Yeshua, I said: "........... Michael is an angel, one of the 2 cherubims that stand beside God's throne, Gabriel being the other."

 

[veteran]

Dan 7:13-14
13 I saw in the night visions, and, behold, one like the Son of man came with the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of days, and they brought him near before him.
14 And there was given him dominion, and glory, and a kingdom, that all people, nations, and languages, should serve him: his dominion is an everlasting dominion, which shall not pass away, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed.
(KJV)

The Dan.7:14 passage is also clear that Christ Jesus is meant, since the archangel Michael is not given those things.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Hi Michael,
I think you have me confused with Josy. I bolded his text in my post (the one above yours) and headed each part of his comments with "You said" and my comments are underneath his in regular text. The only time I bolded anything in my comments was when I was highlighting a scripture or certain words within a scripture. I never said Michael was Yeshua, I said: "........... Michael is an angel, one of the 2 cherubims that stand beside God's throne, Gabriel being the other."

Okay, where do you find the doctrine that Michael (the angel) and Gabriel are Cherubim? I'm not saying that they aren't, but where do you find such a doctrine? In the book of Daniel and chapter 9 verse 20, Gabriel is described as a man and the only description I find of a cherub in scripture is of something that you wouldn't call a man. But then again in chapter 28 of the book of Ezekial you find a lengthy description of "the prince of tyre" who is identified as “ the anointed cherub who covers," which is understood by some as being a reference to Lucifer or Satan. The scripture doesn't generally give lengthy descriptions of angelic beings and usually their appearance is like that of a man. Where do all these other doctrines come from? I assume that angelic beings were never intended to be the focus of our attention as they were created to minister to those who would inherit eternal life, but I also assume that we have some information about them given to us because the fallen ones seek worshippers among men. Again, I find it disturbing to have angelic beings compared to our Lord as they are created beings and not meant to be worshipped, while the worship of Jesus is completely appropriate as He is their creator as well as ours. However, I'd still like to know where all the extrabiblical doctrine is coming from.

 

[Elle]

Hi Michael,
You said:
"Okay, where do you find the doctrine that Michael (the angel) and Gabriel are Cherubim? I'm not saying that they aren't, but where do you find such a doctrine?"

You don't in any direct way, but they are the 2 cherubims which stand on either side of the ark and cover the ark with their wings. When Moses was instructed to make the earthly tabernacle and everything in it, it was based off the heavenly tabernacle above. Satan was also a covering cherubim, but lost his position. When Daniel described Gabriel and he used the word "man", it does not necessarily mean flesh and blood man. The Hebrew word "'iysh" can also mean:
1) man
a.) man, male (in contrast to woman, female)
b.) husband
c.) human being, person (in contrast to God)
d.) servant
e.) mankind
f.) champion
g.) great man

Based on the context "man" would have better been translated as servant. Even if Daniel did mean flesh and blood man, angels often appeared as men as was the case with Abraham when God and 2 angels appeared to him as men. So seeing Michael and Gabriel are the only 2 angels mentioned by name, it stands to reason they are the 2 cherubims that stand on either side of the ark and cover it with their wings. Besides Luke 1:19 and 1:26 calls Gabriel and angel and here you can see his servant position to God.

Also the Strong's Concordance defines Gabriel as: Gabriel = "warrior of God" or "man of God"
1) an archangel; the angel God used to send messages of great importance to man; sent to Daniel, to Zacharias, and to Mary

and....

Michael is defined as:
Michael = "who is like God"
1) one of, the chief, or the first archangel who is described as the one who stands in time of conflict for the children of Israel

You said:
"Again, I find it disturbing to have angelic beings compared to our Lord as they are created beings and not meant to be
worshipped, while the worship of Jesus is completely appropriate as He is their creator as well as ours.

This is twice you accused me of comparing angelic beings to Yeshua. Show me please where I said that. I already corrected you the first time. Did you bother to read my first response to you? You are making false accusations of which I do not appreciate.

Anyhow, I won't get dogmatic about Michael and Gabriel being the covering Cherubims, but it makes sense to me. I have no problem whether you accept or reject the notion.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Hi Michael,
You said:
"Okay, where do you find the doctrine that Michael (the angel) and Gabriel are Cherubim? I'm not saying that they aren't, but where do you find such a doctrine?"

You don't in any direct way, but they are the 2 cherubims which stand on either side of the ark and cover the ark with their wings. When Moses was instructed to make the earthly tabernacle and everything in it, it was based off the heavenly tabernacle above. Satan was also a covering cherubim, but lost his position. When Daniel described Gabriel and he used the word "man", it does not necessarily mean flesh and blood man. The Hebrew word "'iysh" can also mean:
1) man
a.) man, male (in contrast to woman, female)
b.) husband
c.) human being, person (in contrast to God)
d.) servant
e.) mankind
f.) champion
g.) great man

Based on the context "man" would have better been translated as servant. Even if Daniel did mean flesh and blood man, angels often appeared as men as was the case with Abraham when God and 2 angels appeared to him as men. So seeing Michael and Gabriel are the only 2 angels mentioned by name, it stands to reason they are the 2 cherubims that stand on either side of the ark and cover it with their wings. Besides Luke 1:19 and 1:26 calls Gabriel and angel and here you can see his servant position to God.

Also the Strong's Concordance defines Gabriel as: Gabriel = "warrior of God" or "man of God"
1) an archangel; the angel God used to send messages of great importance to man; sent to Daniel, to Zacharias, and to Mary

and....

Michael is defined as:
Michael = "who is like God"
1) one of, the chief, or the first archangel who is described as the one who stands in time of conflict for the children of Israel

You said:
"Again, I find it disturbing to have angelic beings compared to our Lord as they are created beings and not meant to be
worshipped, while the worship of Jesus is completely appropriate as He is their creator as well as ours.

This is twice you accused me of comparing angelic beings to Yeshua. Show me please where I said that. I already corrected you the first time. Did you bother to read my first response to you? You are making false accusations of which I do not appreciate.

Anyhow, I won't get dogmatic about Michael and Gabriel being the covering Cherubims, but it makes sense to me. I have no problem whether you accept or reject the notion.

I actually didn't accuse you of a thing (once or twice.) What I actually did was quote two of your postings as points of reference for my own posts. My own interest in the thread is in the examination of heretical doctrine and its sources. I don't know of any source that I would call reliable other than the scriptures themselves. As I've seen more than one heresy drawn from scripture itself, I question the value of using other sources for the presentation of biblical argument with the exception of historical documentation, which need not be inspired to add to our understanding of what is presented in the word of God. I do believe, however, that a sound presentation of information as factual or even as argument should be accompanied with source references: There is nothing to prevent individuals from posting complete fictions or fantasies on these forum pages and while some of us are not particularly gullible, there are always those without a sound biblical foundation that can be taken in by those inclined to lead them astray. I myself posted a fictitious story in the form of a parable in the attempt to make a point about the purpose of our ministry in service of the gospel of Jesus Christ. I did not however present it as factual, yet I have encountered incredible fantasies on these forums that have drawn members into wild flights of imagination, and I can't see them as having served to edify the body of Christ in any way other than by their exposure as sheer nonsense.

 

[Elle]

Hi Michael,
You said:
"I actually didn't accuse you of a thing (once or twice.)"
Really, I beg to differ.

Accusation #1 from your (Michael's) post #5: It seems just a little blasphemous to compare Jesus (Yashua) with Michael, even if Michael actually would be an angel sent into the world at some point as a man.

As I stated in post #6 in reply to your post #5 to you (Michael) in regards to this accusation:
"Hi Michael,
I think you have me confused with Josy. I bolded his text in my post (the one above yours) and headed each part of his comments with "You said" and my comments are underneath his in regular text. The only time I bolded anything in my comments was when I was highlighting a scripture or certain words within a scripture. I never said Michael was Yeshua, I said: "........... Michael is an angel, one of the 2 cherubims that stand beside God's throne, Gabriel being the other."

Accusation #2 from your (Michael's) post #8:
Again, I find it disturbing to have angelic beings compared to our Lord as they are created beings and not meant to be worshipped, while the worship of Jesus is completely appropriate as He is their creator as well as ours.

As I stated in post #9 in reply to your post #8 to you (Michael) in regards to this accusation:
"This is twice you accused me of comparing angelic beings to Yeshua. Show me please where I said that. I already corrected you the first time. Did you bother to read my first response to you? You are making false accusations of which I do not appreciate."

You said in last post you made:
"What I actually did was quote two of your postings as points of reference for my own posts."
No you did not quote me, you falsely accused me of comparing angelic beings to Yeshua. How can you possibly quote me saying that when I NEVER said that. Please, show me where I compared Yeshua to an angelic being. You might take your own advice as stated in your (Michael's) post # 5 when you said:
"I'm assuming that you, as professing Christians know the Lord and have been born again by His Spirit. If you haven't been, then I call you to repentance, to confess your sin before God and to believe on Him who came to satisfy God's judgment against sin for all who would receive Him, even the beloved, our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ, eternal Son of the eternal Father, risen from the dead and seated upon the throne of kingdoms, blessed be His name forever. Amen."

BTW, you need to take this issue up with Josy, for it was they that said that the "one like the Son of man" is Michael, not me. You used my post to address concerns that should have been directed at Josy. Go read their first and second posts, then things might become clear for you as to who is comparing Michael to Yeshua. When you did direct a question that actually pertained to something I said, I did answer. I answered this question of yours, "Okay, where do you find the doctrine that Michael (the angel) and Gabriel are Cherubim? I'm not saying that they aren't, but where do you find such a doctrine?", in post #9.

 

[michaelvpardo]

Hi Michael,
You said:
"I actually didn't accuse you of a thing (once or twice.)"
Really, I beg to differ.

Accusation #1 from your (Michael's) post #5: It seems just a little blasphemous to compare Jesus (Yashua) with Michael, even if Michael actually would be an angel sent into the world at some point as a man.

As I stated in post #6 in reply to your post #5 to you (Michael) in regards to this accusation:
"Hi Michael,
I think you have me confused with Josy. I bolded his text in my post (the one above yours) and headed each part of his comments with "You said" and my comments are underneath his in regular text. The only time I bolded anything in my comments was when I was highlighting a scripture or certain words within a scripture. I never said Michael was Yeshua, I said: "........... Michael is an angel, one of the 2 cherubims that stand beside God's throne, Gabriel being the other."

Accusation #2 from your (Michael's) post #8:
Again, I find it disturbing to have angelic beings compared to our Lord as they are created beings and not meant to be worshipped, while the worship of Jesus is completely appropriate as He is their creator as well as ours.

As I stated in post #9 in reply to your post #8 to you (Michael) in regards to this accusation:
"This is twice you accused me of comparing angelic beings to Yeshua. Show me please where I said that. I already corrected you the first time. Did you bother to read my first response to you? You are making false accusations of which I do not appreciate."

You said in last post you made:
"What I actually did was quote two of your postings as points of reference for my own posts."
No you did not quote me, you falsely accused me of comparing angelic beings to Yeshua. How can you possibly quote me saying that when I NEVER said that. Please, show me where I compared Yeshua to an angelic being. You might take your own advice as stated in your (Michael's) post # 5 when you said:
"I'm assuming that you, as professing Christians know the Lord and have been born again by His Spirit. If you haven't been, then I call you to repentance, to confess your sin before God and to believe on Him who came to satisfy God's judgment against sin for all who would receive Him, even the beloved, our Lord and Savior Jesus the Christ, eternal Son of the eternal Father, risen from the dead and seated upon the throne of kingdoms, blessed be His name forever. Amen."

BTW, you need to take this issue up with Josy, for it was they that said that the "one like the Son of man" is Michael, not me. You used my post to address concerns that should have been directed at Josy. Go read their first and second posts, then things might become clear for you as to who is comparing Michael to Yeshua. When you did direct a question that actually pertained to something I said, I did answer. I answered this question of yours, "Okay, where do you find the doctrine that Michael (the angel) and Gabriel are Cherubim? I'm not saying that they aren't, but where do you find such a doctrine?", in post #9.

Again, I say, I used your posts as a reference for response and didn't accuse you of a thing. I quoted your post, not you. Also you just stated that you answered my question with regard to a source for the notion that the angels named Michael and Gabriel are Cherubim in post # 9, but on the page I'm viewing, post # 9 is my own post. In that post I quoted a doctrine posted by you, but again there is no source of that doctrine given. I don't know if you're attempting to be evasive or just obtuse. I suspect the former rather than the latter though I have no idea what your credentials might be. I was simply asking for information on the sources of such strange doctrines (strange in the sense that they aren't found in scripture), while you appear to be "begging" for a fight. I can play that game if you want, but it seems like a waste of time to me. Do you "beg to differ" on that as well?

 

[Elle]

Hi Michael,

You said:
"Again, I say, I used your posts as a reference for response and didn't accuse you of a thing. I quoted your post, not you."

Fine, but by doing so you created a whole lot of confusion by using my post as a reference. What else am I suppose to think when it is my name that is attached to the post you are using? You might be better off starting your own post. Also, who might I ask then are you accusing of comparing Yeshua to Michael when you said:

Post #5: "It seems just a little blasphemous to compare Jesus (Yashua) with Michael, even if Michael actually would be an angel sent into the world at some point as a man."

And....

Post #8: "Again, I find it disturbing to have angelic beings compared to our Lord as they are created beings and not meant to be worshipped, while the worship of Jesus is completely appropriate as He is their creator as well as ours."

Please, enlighten me to who you are referring. Obviously you felt someone was, otherwise why make the comment. Seeing your comments were tied to my post that you used as a reference point, it stands to reason you meant me. All you have to do to clear this up is to name the person you are making those comments to.

You said:
"Also you just stated that you answered my question with regard to a source for the notion that the angels named Michael and Gabriel are Cherubim in post # 9, but on the page I'm viewing, post # 9 is my own post."

Then the forum needs to fix the problem, because post #9 is mine on the page I am viewing. Posts 4, 6, 9, 11 and this one, which will be #13, are all my posts. Your posts are #'s 5, 8, 10 and 12. Here is what I said in regards to your question about Michael and Gabriel in POST #9. Here it is again:

"Hi Michael,
You said:
"Okay, where do you find the doctrine that Michael (the angel) and Gabriel are Cherubim? I'm not saying that they aren't, but where do you find such a doctrine?"

You don't in any direct way, but they are the 2 cherubims which stand on either side of the ark and cover the ark with their wings. When Moses was instructed to make the earthly tabernacle and everything in it, it was based off the heavenly tabernacle above. Satan was also a covering cherubim, but lost his position. When Daniel described Gabriel and he used the word "man", it does not necessarily mean flesh and blood man. The Hebrew word "'iysh" can also mean:
1) man
a.) man, male (in contrast to woman, female)
b.) husband
c.) human being, person (in contrast to God)
d.) servant
e.) mankind
f.) champion
g.) great man

Based on the context "man" would have better been translated as servant. Even if Daniel did mean flesh and blood man, angels often appeared as men as was the case with Abraham when God and 2 angels appeared to him as men. So seeing Michael and Gabriel are the only 2 angels mentioned by name, it stands to reason they are the 2 cherubims that stand on either side of the ark and cover it with their wings. Besides Luke 1:19 and 1:26 calls Gabriel and angel and here you can see his servant position to God.

Also the Strong's Concordance defines Gabriel as: Gabriel = "warrior of God" or "man of God"
1) an archangel; the angel God used to send messages of great importance to man; sent to Daniel, to Zacharias, and to Mary

and....

Michael is defined as:
Michael = "who is like God"
1) one of, the chief, or the first archangel who is described as the one who stands in time of conflict for the children of Israel.

.........................................

Anyhow, I won't get dogmatic about Michael and Gabriel being the covering Cherubims, but it makes sense to me. I have no problem whether you accept or reject the notion. "

You said:
"In that post I quoted a doctrine posted by you, but again there is no source of that doctrine given."

I all ready provided the requested information in red text above and also back in post #9. I also said in the red text above: "You don't in any direct way, but they are the 2 cherubims which stand on either side of the ark and cover the ark with their wings."

The above was the part of my comment that answered your question of:"Okay, where do you find the doctrine that Michael (the angel) and Gabriel are Cherubim? I'm not saying that they aren't, but where do you find such a doctrine?"

There will not be a source of doctrine because it is MY understanding that the 2 cherubims are Michael and Gabriel. I also said: "Anyhow, I won't get dogmatic about Michael and Gabriel being the covering Cherubims, but it makes sense to me. I have no problem whether you accept or reject the notion." This means it is my personal opinion and that you do not have to accept it. It is not a doctrine that I am forcing on any one, it is simply MY understanding of the scriptures.

You said:
I don't know if you're attempting to be evasive or just obtuse. I suspect the former rather than the latter though I have no idea what your credentials might be.

Neither, as I all ready said: "I all ready provided the requested information in red text above and also back in post #9"

You said:
"I was simply asking for information on the sources of such strange doctrines (strange in the sense that they aren't found in scripture), while you appear to be "begging" for a fight."

I gave you the information you sought. No, I am not looking for a fight. What you fail to realize is how, by using my post as a reference point, you tied me as being the source that compared Yeshua to Michael. It was you and you alone that caused this problem. I was merely trying to tell you that I never said it. If you are not accusing me, then who is it you are accusing of comparing Yeshua to Michael. Answer the question, and all will be made clear.

You said:
"I can play that game if you want, but it seems like a waste of time to me. Do you "beg to differ" on that as well?"

Problem is, it is you playing a game, head games actually. All I want you to do is answer the question of who you are accusing of comparing Yeshua to Michael. If Josy, then say Josy. If me, then show me where I said it. If neither, then why make the same accusation twice?

 

[tgwprophet]

Michael, watchout for Elle she would even verbally abuse a prophet.

 

[tgwprophet]

Since this post I believe posts are better tempered, hurray for Elle I hope.