Michael is Jesus?
- Thread starter kcnalp
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Your references do not say Jesus is the Father. My guess is that you are so indoctrinated that you do not realize it. Mark 1:1 explains the ministry of Jesus is about the Son of God.
This means he is not God.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
[1] This thread is being hijacked by another topic. Not good.
[2] This thread starts with a question, but when answers are provided, no one desires to consider those answers, and when further follow up is to be given personally, one to one, the replies are always along the lines of 'No, thanks". So the purpose of the thread was merely to advance an agenda without consideration of the evidence contrary to the starting position?
[3] I see mailmandan (lurking, in this thread; constantly misrepresenting in other threads by CnPing anti-SDA links, which are all shown to be fallacious to him in every forum he appears in, but he loves the lies of others (and so eats of them)), and now post(human) from Christian Chat are here.
[4] I see wrangler who still cannot accurately describe the erroneous doctrine of the 'trinity', neither can he distinguish that from the eternal heavenly Trio, and constantly puts forth a strawman of his own making in nearly every single case, no matter how many times he is instructed in the actual positions held.
[5] I see everyone who is dead-set against Michael being the Son of God (Jesus) misdefine and misuse the word "angel" (also archangel) in nearly every single case, and refuse to be corrected on it, when shown by evidence, or when offered specific evidence from the very places they are citing from. The word "angel" carries no definition of 'created'. It simply means "messenger / ambassador / that which carries a message for another" irrespective of whether that which is the messenger is created or uncreated.
[6] I see simple logic being rejected, simply because those being asked on specific points, know exactly where the end result will conclude, and they cannot accept it, and so choose an incorrect answer from the start.
[7] I see massive assumptions, a priori, and presumption on most of the questioners who oppose Michael being the eternal Son of God (Jesus), and they refuse to be corrected when shown. This thread was never about getting to the truth. It was about a preset agenda simply to mock an idea that is taught in scripture, simply because they have a predisposed hatred and bias of that which is foreign to them, all because they heard or read some so called anti-cult site (which themselves act cultish) and have already pre chosen to continue that websites dogma, irrespective of having never done their own personal and prayerful indepth study in scripture. Even if they have read a little, they refuse to be challenged in their position publically.
Well, I have given all that is needful at the beginning, and even throughout. If any want to discuss the subject, contact me by PM. Otherwise, start a new thread independent of this one and invite me personally. Otherwise I'ma bounce up outta here, yo. 88mph. Yeet.
[2] This thread starts with a question, but when answers are provided, no one desires to consider those answers, and when further follow up is to be given personally, one to one, the replies are always along the lines of 'No, thanks". So the purpose of the thread was merely to advance an agenda without consideration of the evidence contrary to the starting position?
[3] I see mailmandan (lurking, in this thread; constantly misrepresenting in other threads by CnPing anti-SDA links, which are all shown to be fallacious to him in every forum he appears in, but he loves the lies of others (and so eats of them)), and now post(human) from Christian Chat are here.
[4] I see wrangler who still cannot accurately describe the erroneous doctrine of the 'trinity', neither can he distinguish that from the eternal heavenly Trio, and constantly puts forth a strawman of his own making in nearly every single case, no matter how many times he is instructed in the actual positions held.
[5] I see everyone who is dead-set against Michael being the Son of God (Jesus) misdefine and misuse the word "angel" (also archangel) in nearly every single case, and refuse to be corrected on it, when shown by evidence, or when offered specific evidence from the very places they are citing from. The word "angel" carries no definition of 'created'. It simply means "messenger / ambassador / that which carries a message for another" irrespective of whether that which is the messenger is created or uncreated.
[6] I see simple logic being rejected, simply because those being asked on specific points, know exactly where the end result will conclude, and they cannot accept it, and so choose an incorrect answer from the start.
[7] I see massive assumptions, a priori, and presumption on most of the questioners who oppose Michael being the eternal Son of God (Jesus), and they refuse to be corrected when shown. This thread was never about getting to the truth. It was about a preset agenda simply to mock an idea that is taught in scripture, simply because they have a predisposed hatred and bias of that which is foreign to them, all because they heard or read some so called anti-cult site (which themselves act cultish) and have already pre chosen to continue that websites dogma, irrespective of having never done their own personal and prayerful indepth study in scripture. Even if they have read a little, they refuse to be challenged in their position publically.
Well, I have given all that is needful at the beginning, and even throughout. If any want to discuss the subject, contact me by PM. Otherwise, start a new thread independent of this one and invite me personally. Otherwise I'ma bounce up outta here, yo. 88mph. Yeet.
wow i'm famous, and i get the royal plural verb form?
this is indeed a nice welcome =]
is it though?
who Christ really is, is integral to whether He is Michael or not. His full inclusion in the godhead is absolutely relevant to that, and i agree that in cases in the OT where 'The Angel of the LORD' is described, like Judges 13 for example, the word 'Messenger' may be more appropriate, because Hebrews 1 also clearly distinguishes Him from angels.
whether he's Michael or not, i think is fully discussed. He's not. Jude 1:9 clearly shows that, and it's evident immediately that contrary to Mssr. Phone's claim, Mikha'el's name does not mean "who is as God" as though a descriptive; it means "who is like God?" in the interrogative: 'Mi' ((Strong's 4310)) is an expressly interrogative pronoun; if you are using 'who' in a descriptive sense the word is asher, Strong's 834.
so there's simply no argument that He is Michael left; the whole idea is refuted.
that being the case, what is left to tidy up in the discussion at hand is only something which i gather is also relatively infamous around here ((?)) to wit, Mssr. Wrangler's unbelief. it being the case however that you indicate this is longstanding, belligerent & stupid ((Biblically speaking: Proverbs 12:1)) behavior on his part, i suppose i ought to just join you in abandoning the thread, leaving the remainder of the participants to the respective heresies they have chosen to wed themselves to. that would also be Biblical, Proverbs 14:7
thanks for the heads up =]
Last edited:
Michiah-Imla
Well-Known Member
Reading the scriptures alone no one will make a connection between Michael and Jesus being the same being.
Any man who desires to disturb my understanding of scriptures is quickly ignored. If Eve would have followed this principle we wouldn’t be in the pickle we’re in now.
Any man who desires to disturb my understanding of scriptures is quickly ignored. If Eve would have followed this principle we wouldn’t be in the pickle we’re in now.
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
You view scripture through biased opinion. It's why you reject those scriptures that were offered you in other threads.
There are no Scriptures which promote Michael to the status of the uniquely begotten Son of God, who is Jesus Christ. And there are no Scriptures which say that the Angel of the LORD is Michael.
Marc RL Ministry
Active Member
- Jude 1:9 (KJV)
Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
So humility and submission is a quality you willingly ascribe to Michael, but not Jesus?
Brakelite
Well-Known Member
It's only a promotion in your mind because you are approaching the whole discussion from a preconceived presumption that is not found in scripture. That Michael is a created being.
mailmandan
Well-Known Member
Speaking of translations. Check out the SDA paraphrase, the “Clear Word Bible.”
The SDA, the Clear Word Bible, Jesus, and Michael the Archangel
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
I kind of wish this thread was a poll question. I'm curious as to how many here think Jesus was Michael.
Is it important in a person's walk with God to go one way or the other? Can a person love the Truth without completely and perfectly knowing the Truth?
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Honestly, I'm not sure why you even post in threads like that with that outlook. It may not be important in a person's walk with God to know what the forecast is for tomorrow. That doesn't mean I don't still want to know - even if the forecast is not 100% accurate.
Opinion polls do not determine truth. They reveal people's opinion.
As you will then... I really posed no outlook but rather two questions which I did not answer.
Wrangler
Well-Known Member
Questions reveal your Outlook.
NOTE: I am not even debating the OP. Just wanted to get a feel for where the opinions fell. You seem to not want the topic discussed either way since you admit not even answering your own besides-the-point questions.
Similar threads
