Is Jesus an angel?

[PruePhillip]

The Book of Daniel was written in reaction to the persecution of the Jews by the Greek king Antiochus IV Epiphanes in 167-164 BCE.

Again, no books were allowed to be added to the Old Testament. If they were then Maccabees would
be a part of the sacred text. Was Maccabees about the Roman or Arab invasion of Israel? No, it was
about the Greeks. And likewise, Daniel was about the Babylonian era of Jewish history.

You can't refer to "scholars" in this dispute because no "scholar" could refer to God speaking to
Daniel because they don't believe that happened, or even that there is a God. So things need to be
"explained" in the "light" of this understanding. And "explained" to debunk those who believe that
God exists.

"Scholars" have stopped referring to the "mythic" King David now because of new evidence
concerning the House of David. They won't say they were wrong.

 

[calm]

There is only one Archangel just as there is only one God. Michael is the only Archangel....the one who commands all the angels. Angels have rank according to the scriptures. No one ranks higher than Michael.

Nowhere in the Bible is it said that there is only one Archangel.

If Jesus is said to return to gather his anointed ones, and he calls them with “an archangel’s voice” ....why is a superior being using the voice of someone he outranks? Read 1 Thessalonians 4:14-16....
“14 For if we have faith that Jesus died and rose again, so too God will bring with him those who have fallen asleep in death through Jesus. 15 For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.”
The Lord has an archangel’s voice....so the Lord is logically, Michael.

Yes the Lord will descend by the voice of an Archangel. But where does it say that this archangel is the Lord?

As mentioned above, the demons are defectors from the ranks of God’s faithful angels. As free willed beings, they were lured into rebellion by their leader satan, and they have one aim.....to take as many into oblivion with them as they can. They are liars and deceivers and are particularly active on earth since their eviction from heaven, as indicated by Revelation 12:7-12. They know their time is almost up. They are no longer subtle in their approach. The world is saturated with an obsession for sex and violence which is their stock in trade. Look at what the world entertains itself with....! It’s Noah’s day all over again...just as Jesus said. (Matthew 24:37-39)

Their final destination is “the lake of fire”.....which the Bible says is “the second death”......nothing ever comes out of there because it is a place of eternal destruction.

Use biblical passages to prove me who the demons are and where they come from, or are you just creating your own story?

 

[Spartan]

Jesus is NOT an angel. He is Jehovah God

John 1:23 quotes Isaiah 40:3 as saying John the Baptist was to prepare the way for the LORD (Jehovah). John prepared the way before Jesus so Jesus must be LORD (Jehovah).

In Isaiah 44:8 God is the only Rock. Psalm 18:31 says, “Who is the Rock except our God”? I Corinthians 10:4, identifies Jesus as the Rock. Jesus must also then be God the Rock.

Isaiah 44:24 says that God (Jehovah) is the one who has made all things. Colossians 1:16, speaking of Christ, says that “all things were created by Him and for him”. Jesus must therefore be Jehovah God.

In Jeremiah 10:10 it says “the LORD (Jehovah) is the true God”. I John 5:20 states that Jesus is the “true God”. Jesus must be the true God.

Isaiah 43:10,11 says that “I, even I, am the LORD; and there is no savior besides Me. Jesus is the Savior (Matthew 1:21, Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:1, etc., etc.). Jesus must be God the Savior.

Jehovah knows all things (Psalm 147:5). Jesus knows “all things.” (John 16:30). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah alone is the only one who knows the hearts of all men. (1 Kings 8:39; Jeremiah 17:9-10). Jesus knows the hearts of all men. (John 2:24-25; Rev. 2:18, 23). Jesus must be God.

Jehovah is our sanctifier. (Exodus 31:13). Jesus sanctifies us (Hebrews 10:10). Only God is the sanctifier of men. Jesus must be God.

Jehovah is our peace (Judges 6:23). Jesus is our peace (Ephesians 2:14). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is our righteousness (Jeremiah 23:6). Jesus is our righteousness. (Romans 3:21-22; 1 Corinthians 1:30). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is the giver of life who will not allow His people to be delivered / snatched out of His hand (Deuteronomy 32:39). Jesus is the giver of life who will not allow His people to be “snatched” out of His hand. (John 10:28). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah’s voice is “like the roar of rushing waters” (Ezekiel 43:2). Jesus’ “voice was like the sound of rushing waters” (Revelation 1:15). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is present everywhere.(Proverbs 15:3; Jeremiah 23:24; I Kings 8:27); Jesus is omnipresent (John 1:48; Matthew 18:20; 28:20). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah’s nature does not change (Malachi 3:6). Jesus’ nature does not change. (Hebrews 13:8).

Jehovah is the only God we are to “serve”(2 Kings 17:35); Jesus (identified as the Creator in Colossians 1:16-17) is to be served (Colossians 3:24). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah the Lord is to be set apart as holy (Isaiah 8:12b-13). Jesus, as Lord, is to be set apart as holy (1 Peter 3:14b-15a).

Jehovah’s glory is not to be given to another (Isaiah 42:8). Jesus shares Jehovah’s glory (John 17:5). Jesus must be Jehovah.

God’s name is Jehovah (or Yahweh—YHWH – Isaiah 42:8). Jesus has Jehovah’s name (John 17:11; John 16:14-15). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is the “mighty God” (Jeremiah 32:17-18; Isaiah 10:20-21). Jesus is the “mighty God”
(Isaiah 9:6) who is “Almighty” (Revelation 1:7-8).

Jehovah is “the first and the last” (Isaiah 44:6; 48:12). Jesus is the “first and the last” (Revelation 1:17-18; 22:12-13, 20). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is the “Alpha and the Omega” (Revelation 1:8; Revelation 21:6-7). Jesus is the “Alpha and the Omega” (Revelation 22:12-13, 20). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah’s title is “the Holy One” (Isaiah 47:4). Jesus is “the Holy One” (Acts 3:14; John 6:69). Jesus must be Jehovah, the Holy One.

Jehovah is the “stumbling stone” of Israel (Isaiah 8:13-15). Jesus is the “stumbling stone” of Israel (1 Peter 2:6-8). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is the great Judge who gives life to whom he wishes and who renders to each man “according” to his “deeds” (Psalm 98:9; Deuteronomy 32:39; Jeremiah 17:9-10). Jesus is the only judge who gives life to whom he wishes and renders to each man “according” to his “deeds” (John 5:21-22; Revelation 2:18, 23). Jesus must be Jehovah.

Jehovah is the great “shepherd” who leads his people to “the spring of the water of life” (Psalm 23:1-2; Revelation 21:6-7). Jesus as the “shepherd” of His people, leads them “to springs of the water of life” (John 10:11-18; Revelation 7:17). THERE IS ONLY ONE SHEPHERD –John 10:16.

Jehovah is “Lord of Lords” (Deuteronomy 10:17). Jesus is “Lord of Lords.” (Revelation 17:14; 19:16). The Father is Lord of all (Matthew 11:25; Acts 17:24). Jesus is “Lord of all.” (Acts 10:36). THERE IS ONLY ONE LORD (Jude 4) .

Jehovah created the universe (Psalm 102:25-27). Jesus created the universe (John 1:3; Colossians 1:15-19; Hebrews 1:10-12). THERE IS ONLY ONE CREATOR. (Isaiah 44:24). Jesus must be Jehovah. Jesus Must be Jehovah

 

[sooda]

That's nonsense. Show me the data on that so-called "consensus"?



That's also absurd.

If Daniel was written as late as is claimed then how did he know of details about Babylon that had been lost within a half-century of its fall to Cyrus in 539 B.C. (Xerxes having destroyed its palaces, walls, and temples in 480 B.C.)? The typical Daniel critic ignores this point.

Again, if the book was written during the Maccabean era to meet the current needs then why does so little of the book reflect the events that are recorded in 1 and 2 Maccabees? Why is there no call to arms? Why the silence concerning the revolt, its leaders, and heroes? This is especially surprising since the uprising began in 168 B.C.! [contra Graubart, 260; notice also that the book doesn't mention the asphyxiation of a thousand devout Jews (Hasidim) by Antiochus' troops in their desert caves--Trever, 89]

If the book was written under the Hellenizer Antiochus why is there so few Greek words in the text? To state it another way: if the book was written during a time of such intensive and extensive Greek influence then why are there *only* 3 Greek words in the entire text? In fact, scholars Yamauchi and Boutflower are surprised "that there are not more Greek words" in this document if it was indeed written in the Maccabean age--note the deep influence of Greek culture and customs on the Books of Maccabees; and yet we see none of this in Daniel! [Edwin M. Yamauchi, Greece and Babylon. (Baker, 1967): 94; cited by Waltke (1976): 325; Emery, 21; Boutflower, 246] Baldwin points out that "the fact that no more than three Greek words occur in the Aramaic of Daniel (and these are technical terms) argues against a second-century date for the writing of the book." [Baldwin (1978a): 34] This fact, as noted by Boutflower (page 246), is especially relevant in comparison with the 19 Persian loan words that are present in the text. Why should an older language assume such prominence in this work? This is the opposite of what we should expect given the normal custom of the ANE (or anywhere else for that matter). As Kitchen, professor of Egyptology at the University of Liverpool, notes: "In Ancient Near Eastern literature, a later writer tends to deck his description of an earlier period with trappings of his *own* time, while retaining archaic features that have survived."

If Daniel originated in Palestine in the 2nd century B.C. as alleged then why doesn't the language of the book reflect the Hebrew that was common at that time--i.e., as reflected in the Qumran scrolls? [Goldingay, xxv] Distinct differences have been noted and it has been shown that the Qumran documents have none of the distinct characteristics of the Hebrew chapters in Daniel. [For a detailed presentation see Archer (1974): 470-481] Archer concludes that "in the areas of syntax, word order, morphology, vocabulary, spelling, and word-usage, there is absolutely no possibility of regarding Daniel as contemporary" [to other second century documents]. He submits that "centuries must have intervened between them."

These findings mean that the Aramaic documents from Qumran *require* that Daniel was written far earlier than the Maccabean thesis allows and that the book was *not* written in Palestine. The Date of the Book of Daniel

Hebrew was pretty much a dead language by 167 B.C. Greek and Aramaic were the commonly used languages.

 

[Spartan]

Hebrew was pretty much a dead language by 167 B.C. Greek and Aramaic were the commonly used languages.

Daniel didn't write in 167. That's a bogus date. I don't know of any conservative scholars who date Daniel that late.

 

[Deeje]

Nowhere in the Bible is it said that there is only one Archangel.

There is only one Archangel. If it says "the" Archangel then there is only one. You will not find find mention of any other Archangels in the canonical books....only in the non-canonical ones. He is the Chief of the angels much like the President of a country....The President is the President...there is no one higher in rank than he is. There are not Presidents running the country, but just one President.

Yes the Lord will descend by the voice of an Archangel. But where does it say that this archangel is the Lord?

"For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we will always be with the Lord."

What is Paul telling us here? Those of Jesus disciples who survive to the time of his return will not gain their reward before those who are sleeping in death. No one was taken to heaven because Paul says that they are all still "sleeping" when Christ returns.....He will raise those with the "heavenly calling" first so that they can take up their positions in heaven before he brings this world to an accounting. Then "afterwards" those of his anointed still alive when he judges the world will be immediately taken from their earthly life and given spirit bodies so that they can dwell with Christ in his Kingdom.

Use biblical passages to prove me who the demons are and where they come from, or are you just creating your own story?

Elementary my dear Watson.....

Revelation 12:7-12...
7 And war broke out in heaven: Miʹcha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him."

So the war in heaven was Michael and his angels, battling satan and his angels. Hurled down to the earth, they wreak havoc because they know that their time is almost up.
The account in Matthew 8:28-29 sheds some light on this...

"When he came to the other side into the region of the Gad·a·renesʹ, two demon-possessed men coming out from among the tombs met him. They were unusually fierce, so nobody had the courage to pass by on that road. 29 And look! they screamed, saying: “What have we to do with you, Son of God? Did you come here to torment us before the appointed time?”

These demons knew who Jesus was, and they knew that they had to obey his commands. Asking if he had come to 'torment them before the appointed time' shows that they knew their fate.

Revelation 20:1-3....
“And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven with the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he seized the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. And he hurled him into the abyss and shut it and sealed it over him, that he might not mislead the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After these things he must be let loose for a little while.”

Matthew 25:41 mentions that when Jesus separates the "sheep from the goats" he says to the goats..... "Go away from me, you who have been cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels."

The apostle Peter also mentions the angels that sinned in Noah's day.
2 Peter 2:4-5...
"Certainly God did not refrain from punishing the angels who sinned, but threw them into Tarʹta·rus, putting them in chains of dense darkness to be reserved for judgment. 5 And he did not refrain from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a flood upon a world of ungodly people."

There is the scriptural deduction identifying the angels that followed satan into rebellion as the demons who still actively lead mankind into sin today, knowing that they will eventually end up in "the lake of fire".

 

[sooda]

Again, no books were allowed to be added to the Old Testament. If they were then Maccabees would
be a part of the sacred text. Was Maccabees about the Roman or Arab invasion of Israel? No, it was
about the Greeks. And likewise, Daniel was about the Babylonian era of Jewish history.

You can't refer to "scholars" in this dispute because no "scholar" could refer to God speaking to
Daniel because they don't believe that happened, or even that there is a God. So things need to be
"explained" in the "light" of this understanding. And "explained" to debunk those who believe that
God exists.

"Scholars" have stopped referring to the "mythic" King David now because of new evidence
concerning the House of David. They won't say they were wrong.

The reference to David on the Mesha Stele. At the time of King David Jerusalem was less than ten acres with a population of less than a thousand people.

The House of David Inscription appears to be a fragment of a victory monument erected by a king of Damascus (Aram) during the 9th century BC, some 250 years after King David’s reign. The fragment specifically mentions victories over a “king of Israel” (probably Joram) and a king of the “House of David”...

 

[PruePhillip]

The reference to David on the Mesha Stele. At the time of King David Jerusalem was less than ten acres with a population of less than a thousand people.

The House of David Inscription appears to be a fragment of a victory monument erected by a king of Damascus (Aram) during the 9th century BC, some 250 years after King David’s reign. The fragment specifically mentions victories over a “king of Israel” (probably Joram) and a king of the “House of David”...

There's growing evidence as to the size and importance of Jerusalem to Israel in the
Bronze Age. But skeptic's Plan B is to deny they ever made such and such a claim,
but diminish the importance of the issue at hand.

Plan A - there was no King David
Plan B - King David was a chieftain of a ten acre village.

So there's been a retreat. I call this "skeptics in the gaps."
It's like God of the Gaps, only as we fill historic gaps in our
knowledge of Bronze Age Israel the skeptics retreat.

 

[sooda]

There's growing evidence as to the size and importance of Jerusalem to Israel in the
Bronze Age. But this seems to be the skeptic's Plan B.
Plan A - there was no King David
Plan B - King David was a chieftain of a ten acre village.

So there's been a retreat. I call this "skeptics in the gaps."
It's like God of the Gaps, only as we fill historic gaps in our
knowledge of Bronze Age Israel the skeptics retreat.

Have you ever been to Jerusalem? I spent several weeks there on three separate trips before the six day war and I thought it was tiny with a large ancient Arab quarter.

This is very interesting.

Ancient Jerusalem: The Village, the Town, the City ...
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/ancient...

Jan 11, 2019 · Overall, however, the area comprises only about 11–12 acres. Geva estimates the population of the city during this period at between 500 and 700 “at most.”

(Previously other prominent scholars had estimated Jerusalem’s population in this period as 880–1,100, 1,000, 2,500, 3,000; still this is hardly what we would consider a metropolis.)

 

[calm]

There is only one Archangel. If it says "the" Archangel then there is only one. You will not find find mention of any other Archangels in the canonical books....only in the non-canonical ones. He is the Chief of the angels much like the President of a country....The President is the President...there is no one higher in rank than he is. There are not Presidents running the country, but just one President.

When I say: The soccer player is good.-
Do I mean that there is only one footballer?
Genesis 16:7 also says "the" angel. Does it also mean that there is only one angel?

"For this is what we tell you by Jehovah’s word, that we the living who survive to the presence of the Lord will in no way precede those who have fallen asleep in death; 16 because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first. 17 Afterward we the living who are surviving will, together with them, be caught away in clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and thus we will always be with the Lord."

What is Paul telling us here? Those of Jesus disciples who survive to the time of his return will not gain their reward before those who are sleeping in death. No one was taken to heaven because Paul says that they are all still "sleeping" when Christ returns.....He will raise those with the "heavenly calling" first so that they can take up their positions in heaven before he brings this world to an accounting. Then "afterwards" those of his anointed still alive when he judges the world will be immediately taken from their earthly life and given spirit bodies so that they can dwell with Christ in his Kingdom.

And how do you now conclude that Jesus is the Archangel with the voice?
I interpret the verse differently. I read that one of the archangels announces the coming of the Lord through his voice and trumpet, but not that the Lord Himself is the angel.

Revelation 12:7-12...
7 And war broke out in heaven: Miʹcha·el and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8 but they did not prevail, nor was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9 So down the great dragon was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him."

So the war in heaven was Michael and his angels, battling satan and his angels. Hurled down to the earth, they wreak havoc because they know that their time is almost up.
The account in Matthew 8:28-29 sheds some light on this...

"When he came to the other side into the region of the Gad·a·renesʹ, two demon-possessed men coming out from among the tombs met him. They were unusually fierce, so nobody had the courage to pass by on that road. 29 And look! they screamed, saying: “What have we to do with you, Son of God? Did you come here to torment us before the appointed time?”

These demons knew who Jesus was, and they knew that they had to obey his commands. Asking if he had come to 'torment them before the appointed time' shows that they knew their fate.

Revelation 20:1-3....
“And I saw an angel coming down out of heaven with the key of the abyss and a great chain in his hand. And he seized the dragon, the original serpent, who is the Devil and Satan, and bound him for a thousand years. And he hurled him into the abyss and shut it and sealed it over him, that he might not mislead the nations anymore until the thousand years were ended. After these things he must be let loose for a little while.”

Matthew 25:41 mentions that when Jesus separates the "sheep from the goats" he says to the goats..... "Go away from me, you who have been cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his angels."

The apostle Peter also mentions the angels that sinned in Noah's day.
2 Peter 2:4-5...
"Certainly God did not refrain from punishing the angels who sinned, but threw them into Tarʹta·rus, putting them in chains of dense darkness to be reserved for judgment. 5 And he did not refrain from punishing an ancient world, but kept Noah, a preacher of righteousness, safe with seven others when he brought a flood upon a world of ungodly people."

There is the scriptural deduction identifying the angels that followed satan into rebellion as the demons who still actively lead mankind into sin today, knowing that they will eventually end up in "the lake of fire".

I have not asked you where the fallen angels come from, but I have asked you where the demons come from and what they are. Demons and fallen angels are not the same.

 

[PruePhillip]

Have you ever been to Jerusalem? I spent several weeks there on three separate trips before the six day war and I thought it was tiny with a large ancient Arab quarter.

This is very interesting.

Ancient Jerusalem: The Village, the Town, the City ...
https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/biblical-sites-places/jerusalem/ancient...

Jan 11, 2019 · Overall, however, the area comprises only about 11–12 acres. Geva estimates the population of the city during this period at between 500 and 700 “at most.”

(Previously other prominent scholars had estimated Jerusalem’s population in this period as 880–1,100, 1,000, 2,500, 3,000; still this is hardly what we would consider a metropolis.)

Actually, we are going there soon. Yes, I believe you can walk around it in a couple of hours.
I understand that at its narrowest point you can walk across Israel in a day or less.
Jerusalem was Israel's capital from about 1000 BC - as the bible stated. Not everyone
lives in the capital - the nation was quite rural and Jerusalem became a cultic center.
Josephus gives a large number for those in the city at the time of the Roma siege.

 

[sooda]

Actually, we are going there soon. Yes, I believe you can walk around it in a couple of hours.
I understand that at its narrowest point you can walk across Israel in a day or less.
Jerusalem was Israel's capital from about 1000 BC - as the bible stated. Not everyone
lives in the capital - the nation was quite rural and Jerusalem became a cultic center.
Josephus gives a large number for those in the city at the time of the Roma siege.

Not exactly.. There was NO united kingdom after Solomon.

922 B.C. After this time the northern kingdom was known as " Israel, " with its capital located in Shechem, Tirzah, and finally Samaria.

The southern kingdom was known as " Judah " which retained Jerusalem as its capital. The northern kingdom was conquered by the Assyrians in 722 B.C. and the southern kingdom was conquered by the Babylonians in 587 B.C.

 

[sooda]

Actually, we are going there soon. Yes, I believe you can walk around it in a couple of hours.
I understand that at its narrowest point you can walk across Israel in a day or less.
Jerusalem was Israel's capital from about 1000 BC - as the bible stated. Not everyone
lives in the capital - the nation was quite rural and Jerusalem became a cultic center.
Josephus gives a large number for those in the city at the time of the Roma siege.

The numbers are grossly exaggerated all through the Bible. Same with Islam. By the time of Christ most Jews lived outside of Palestine... in Persia, Alexandria, Aleppo, Rome, Turkey, Damascus and all around the Med Sea. Just never had the resources to support a large population.

 

[Samael_Khan]

I thought it would be interesting to mention this verse:

Daniel 10:13 - But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia.

Daniel 10:21 - However, I will tell you what is inscribed in the writing of truth Yet there is no one who stands firmly with me against these forces except Michael your prince.

Daniel 12:1 - Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued

My question then is:

If Michael is Jesus, and the firstborn of creation, then why is he only considered ONE of the chief princes and not THE CHIEF PRINCE? To say CHIEF princes is to say that there are many princes, but a few are chief among them. If arch means chief, then it could mean that chief princes ARE chief angels.

Michael was one of many princes who were in charge of countries. Michael was in charge of Israel while others were in charge of other nations such as Persia. They were probably princes on the Arch Fiend's side.

So Michael is only one of the Chief Princes and he is in charge of God's people. He will protect God's people in the future during a time of distress. He leads the angels in heaven and defeats the Dragon and exiles him from heaven.

Regarding 1 Thessalonians 4:16:

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

Nowhere in this verse does it say that Jesus himself will be doing the shouting. It says that he will descend from heaven WITH a shout, which means that the shout would accompany his descent. With the voice of the Archangel, the archangel being Michael as foretold in Daniel 12:1, means that the shout would come from Michael the Archangel or with him being a voice separate from the shout. Obviously there is more than one person spoken of as "with the trumpet of God" implies another using it, as one cannot speak and shout at the same time as blowing a trumpet.

 

[PruePhillip]

The numbers are grossly exaggerated all through the Bible. Same with Islam. By the time of Christ most Jews lived outside of Palestine... in Persia, Alexandria, Aleppo, Rome, Turkey, Damascus and all around the Med Sea. Just never had the resources to support a large population.

Again, its fashionable to say there were few people back then. We even say secular historians
were wrong. I was reminded of this in seeing a documentary on satellite radar imagery of the
vast number of lost cities in Egypt.

But on one hand saying Israel was tiny and saying Israel didn't exist are quite different. Some
resort to saying King David was a just a chieftain as a way of saying there was no King David.
That's faulty logic.

 

[Deeje]

When I say: The soccer player is good.-
Do I mean that there is only one footballer?

Seriously....you think that is an equivalent statement?

Genesis 16:7 also says "the" angel. Does it also mean that there is only one angel?

There are myriads of angels, so why would it? The name of this thread says it all really....no one is saying that Jesus is just "an angel". He is the "only begotten son of God"...a title that most in Christendom do not even understand. Is he a "god" in the definition of the Greek word "theos". He is "divine" but not the Almighty.

He is the "firstborn of all creation" according to Paul and "the beginning of God's creation" according to John. He is the "Master Worker" mentioned in Proverbs 8:30-31, working alongside of his Father in creation....so please explain those. (Colossians 1:15-17; Revelation 3:14)

And how do you now conclude that Jesus is the Archangel with the voice?
I interpret the verse differently. I read that one of the archangels announces the coming of the Lord through his voice and trumpet, but not that the Lord Himself is the angel.

You can interpret it any way you wish.....however, there is only one correct interpretation. As I said, for us it is a belief, not a doctrine, because there is no clear cut scripture confirming it.....just like the trinity, but that doesn't stop Christendom from making it into a doctrine.....does it?

I have not asked you where the fallen angels come from, but I have asked you where the demons come from and what they are. Demons and fallen angels are not the same.

Do tell us with scriptural reference the reason for your conclusions. No apocryphal works please, as they will be dismissed as inauthentic. Canonical scripture only. I await your response....

 

[Desert Snake]

Matthew 16:15-18
2 John 1:3



Hmmm they aren't calling Him an angel, neither does Peter, neither does Jesus correct Peter and tell him He's an angel.

 

[YoursTrue]

I thought it would be interesting to mention this verse:

Daniel 10:13 - But the prince of the kingdom of Persia was withstanding me for twenty-one days; then behold, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me, for I had been left there with the kings of Persia.

Daniel 10:21 - However, I will tell you what is inscribed in the writing of truth Yet there is no one who stands firmly with me against these forces except Michael your prince.

Daniel 12:1 - Now at that time Michael, the great prince who stands guard over the sons of your people, will arise And there will be a time of distress such as never occurred since there was a nation until that time; and at that time your people, everyone who is found written in the book, will be rescued

My question then is:

If Michael is Jesus, and the firstborn of creation, then why is he only considered ONE of the chief princes and not THE CHIEF PRINCE? To say CHIEF princes is to say that there are many princes, but a few are chief among them. If arch means chief, then it could mean that chief princes ARE chief angels.

Michael was one of many princes who were in charge of countries. Michael was in charge of Israel while others were in charge of other nations such as Persia. They were probably princes on the Arch Fiend's side.

So Michael is only one of the Chief Princes and he is in charge of God's people. He will protect God's people in the future during a time of distress. He leads the angels in heaven and defeats the Dragon and exiles him from heaven.

Regarding 1 Thessalonians 4:16:

For the Lord Himself will descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, and the dead in Christ will rise first.

Nowhere in this verse does it say that Jesus himself will be doing the shouting. It says that he will descend from heaven WITH a shout, which means that the shout would accompany his descent. With the voice of the Archangel, the archangel being Michael as foretold in Daniel 12:1, means that the shout would come from Michael the Archangel or with him being a voice separate from the shout. Obviously there is more than one person spoken of as "with the trumpet of God" implies another using it, as one cannot speak and shout at the same time as blowing a trumpet.

There are those who believe that the prince of God's people (as described in the book of Daniel) is none other than the spirit person Michael, and there are some respected commentators who recognize that person is Christ Jesus. Naturally not all, but some do. There are chief princes, and there was one of those princes who is the one who fights for God's people at the proper time.

 

[Samael_Khan]

There are those who believe that the prince of God's people (as described in the book of Daniel) is none other than the spirit person Michael, and there are some respected commentators who recognize that person is Christ Jesus. Naturally not all, but some do. There are chief princes, and there was one of those princes who is the one who fights for God's people at the proper time.

I am aware of that. It is the same with "the angel of the LORD". Although there is nothing objective to say that. There are many ways one can interpret the verses. The problem us when some say that their way is right when their viewpoint at best is circumstantial.

 

[YoursTrue]

I am aware of that. It is the same with "the angel of the LORD". Although there is nothing objective to say that. There are many ways one can interpret the verses. The problem us when some say that their way is right when their viewpoint at best is circumstantial.

It seems apparent to some that Jesus is the prince, there are other princes, but only one that has the responsibility for God's people. Further, before he came to earth he was a spirit. Therefore, particularly as a spirit messenger, he was an angel. Not "just" an angel. One reason is that angels are far more powerful than humans.