Jesus being michael

[JesusKnowsYou]

Were in the bible does it say right out jesus is michael?

No where. Jesus is not Michael.

 

[THE Art Vandelay]

Seriously? Is that really the best you can do? If you're so certain that the Bible teaches that none of us had a pre-mortal life, you ought to be able to provide me with a specific passage.

Seriously, that's all you have? (See I can do that too.) You're the one claiming we had a pre-mortal life, so you're the one needing to prove it. Since you can't, you obviously agree there's no basis for your belief in it.

 

[THE Art Vandelay]

No where. Jesus is not Michael.

Yes, he is.

 

[calm]

Daniel 11 and 12 are describing warfare against the nations.... Revelation 12 is describing heavenly warfare, angel against angel. Rev 19 is describing warfare against the nations its not that difficult. Please explain how you can read Dan 11 as referring to Satan and the other angels that followed him being casting from heaven.

Daniel 12:1 does not describe war against nations; and Daniel 12:1 and Daniel 11:40-45 have nothing to do with each other. Daniel 11:40-45 describes the wars of the people among themselves. This has nothing to do with angels.
Besides, I said that Daniel 12:1 refers to Revelation 12:7-17 and not to Daniel 11:40-45.

You keep conflating the term chief Prince and Chief messenger as if they are the same thing. No matter how much you WISH it says that there are several Chief Angels/Messangers because Daniel 10:13 says, "Michael one of the Chief Princes". It does NOT say that. PRINCE and ANGEL are not interchangeable words in this passage.
There is no argument from me that there are hierarchies of power and responsibility in the heavenly host, God is a god of order after all, so Michael being included as one of those angels does not mean he was also not the highest rank.. for you to exclude the possibility because of a trinitarian bias is dangerous.

How many times do I have to explain this to you?
"Chief Prince" means "Archangel." The definition of "Archangel" is "a ruler of Angels" or "a chief Angel" and the definition of "Chief Prince" is "first ruler" or "greatest ruler".
The Old and New Testaments use different words because they were written in different languages. (Hebrew and Greek)
If it says "Michael one of the chief Princes" then it means "Michael one of the first rulers" or "one of the greatest rulers". The term "angel" is only a term for created beings.
According to the Bible Michael is not an angel who rules over all angels but belongs to a small group of angels who each lead their own army. And everyone in this group is an angel and thus also a messenger.

Well i would quote the scriptures about Firstborn and Only Begotten but apparently those words mean different things in this case. The fact i speak and read English and know what the words mean is somehow a disadvantage when talking trinity stuff. so i really do not want to go there.

I don't want to talk about the Trinity, but I want to know where it is written in the Bible that Jesus was created.

Ok.... There is nothing definitive about the Angels so all i can do is apply common sense. I view the faithful Angles as beings who through their own free will chose to stay loyal to God. The fact that some Angels rebelled and chose "human pleasures" shows that we are more similar than you want to acknowledge.
If you think the Angels are nothing like Gods other sentient creation and he implemented a completely different moral and behavioral pattern on them then i guess there is no proof that i can give you to show that you are wrong.
The Angels in your opinion have NONE of Gods attributes, which going by your closing paragraph would also mean love, i honestly can not understand how you can think this.

Yes angels have free will but that does not make them similar to God. Animals also have free will.

Ok this may be a bit deep but follow along if you can....... If you look at Ezekiel Chapter one you will get a detailed description of the Cherubim these beings have four faces, the face of a Man,a Lion , an Ox and an Eagle these faces reflect the major attributes of God .... Love Justice Wisdom and Power. This would seem to indicate that the Angels reflect the attributes of their God and Father.
So YES the Angles also reflect the characteristics and attributes of God to the best of their ability just as every other sentient being is supposed too.

That these faces mean what you claim here is disputed, but if that were true, then they reflect (symbolize) the attributes of God and not their own.
Besides, the cherubim are not angels.

You must know that the Angels are also "sons of God"... sons are somewhat like their Fathers aren't they?

This is not to be understood literally, the term "sons of God" which is used for the angels is to be interpreted only as a title.
Also Satan, although he has forsaken God, is still called " Son of God ".

Ok.. we humans are obligated to Love but the Angles aren't?

What does the Bible say?

Oh of course, only Love. So are we unable to exercise justice, power and wisdom? What sort of attributes of God wouldn't work if you tried to apply them in your life. Are you so hung up on omnipotence and omnipresence that you think that is all Jehovah is about?

Did i say that?
As I said, we people have some attributes of God.

 

[Katzpur]

Seriously, that's all you have? (See I can do that too.)

Wow. You know how to be a copycat. That takes some serious skill.

You're the one claiming we had a pre-mortal life, so you're the one needing to prove it.

I'd have been happy to if you'd just started out by asking me what evidence there is for my belief. But no, you had to throw in an insult. As soon as somebody feels the need to do that, I know what I'm dealing with and respond in kind. I can play nice or not, but you've already established the rules of the game.

Since you can't, you obviously agree there's no basis for your belief in it.

Don't tell me what I "obviously agree" with. You're in no position to do that. I actually can provide several passages of scripture that at least imply that all of us had a pre-mortal life. I don't believe you can provide any evidence at all that we did not exist in any way prior to our birth (or conception). Next time you want to debate me, try to be civil and not insulting. You'll see how much further it gets you.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes, he is.

So you're a Jehovah's Witness? Why don't you state that as your religion? Is it because Jehovah's Witnesses are strongly encouraged not to participate in forums such as this one, and you don't want to implicate yourself? Jehovah's Witnesses are alone in believing that Jesus was Michael. If you're going to state JW doctrine, at least have the strength of character to make it clear who you are. It would make it a lot easier for people to have respect for you.

 

[THE Art Vandelay]

So you're a Jehovah's Witness? Why don't you state that as your religion? Is it because Jehovah's Witnesses are strongly encouraged not to participate in forums such as this one, and you don't want to implicate yourself? Jehovah's Witnesses are alone in believing that Jesus was Michael. If you're going to state JW doctrine, at least have the strength of character to make it clear who you are. It would make it a lot easier for people to have respect for you.

I haven't said what I am because that's not a requirement for posting here. Obviousl you don't know what you're talking about and have some kind of ignorant bigotry against Jehovah's Witnesses. That in itself would make it hard for anyone to have respect for you.

 

[THE Art Vandelay]

Wow. You know how to be a copycat. That takes some serious skill.
I'd have been happy to if you'd just started out by asking me what evidence there is for my belief. But no, you had to throw in an insult. As soon as somebody feels the need to do that, I know what I'm dealing with and respond in kind. I can play nice or not, but you've already established the rules of the game.

Don't tell me what I "obviously agree" with. You're in no position to do that. I actually can provide several passages of scripture that at least imply that all of us had a pre-mortal life. I don't believe you can provide any evidence at all that we did not exist in any way prior to our birth (or conception). Next time you want to debate me, try to be civil and not insulting. You'll see how much further it gets you.

Wow, "copycat". At least now I know I'm dealing with a 10 year old who name-calls and acts hypocritically with insults. I am in the position to tell you what you obviously agree with because I can read what YOU are writing. You have absolutely no basis whatsoever for your nonsensical belief and simply don't like being called out on that. I get it. Next time you want to debate, try to be civil and not insulting. You'll see how much further it gets you.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Yes, he is.

Not according to the scriptures.

 

[Moz]

Daniel 12:1 does not describe war against nations; and Daniel 12:1 and Daniel 11:40-45 have nothing to do with each other. Daniel 11:40-45 describes the wars of the people among themselves. This has nothing to do with angels.
Besides, I said that Daniel 12:1 refers to Revelation 12:7-17 and not to Daniel 11:40-45.

How many times do I have to explain this to you?
"Chief Prince" means "Archangel." The definition of "Archangel" is "a ruler of Angels" or "a chief Angel" and the definition of "Chief Prince" is "first ruler" or "greatest ruler".
The Old and New Testaments use different words because they were written in different languages. (Hebrew and Greek)
If it says "Michael one of the chief Princes" then it means "Michael one of the first rulers" or "one of the greatest rulers". The term "angel" is only a term for created beings.
According to the Bible Michael is not an angel who rules over all angels but belongs to a small group of angels who each lead their own army. And everyone in this group is an angel and thus also a messenger.

I don't want to talk about the Trinity, but I want to know where it is written in the Bible that Jesus was created.

Yes angels have free will but that does not make them similar to God. Animals also have free will.

That these faces mean what you claim here is disputed, but if that were true, then they reflect (symbolize) the attributes of God and not their own.
Besides, the cherubim are not angels.

This is not to be understood literally, the term "sons of God" which is used for the angels is to be interpreted only as a title.
Also Satan, although he has forsaken God, is still called " Son of God ".

What does the Bible say?

Did i say that?
As I said, we people have some attributes of God.

The times of trouble in the Daniel chapter 12 account coincide with the Great Tribulation of Matthew 24 account so YES these actions are against mankind.

Dan 12:1 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book.

Matt 24 :21 For then shall be great tribulation, such as was not since the beginning of the world to this time, no, nor ever shall be. 22 And except those days should be shortened, there should no flesh be saved: but for the elect's sake those days shall be shortened.

Rev 19:15 And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it he should smite the nations: and he shall rule them with a rod of iron: and he treadeth the winepress of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God.16 And he hath on his vesture and on his thigh a name written, King Of Kings, And Lord Of Lords.

Matthew 24 describes the lead up to and outbreak of Armageddon, the winepress of God in Rev 19 is Armageddon Dan 12 is set during the SAME time of troubles, they are ALL referring to the same thing. How many times do the Angelic armies engage in warfare in the Last days if these are not parallel accounts?
.........................................................
How many times do I have to explain this to you?
"Chief Prince" means "Archangel."

How many times? Until you get it right or give up i guess. Chief Prince DOES NOT mean Arch Angel. Arch Angel means "chief messenger"

The Old and New Testaments use different words because they were written in different languages.

Deceptive and inaccurate in its application. The Hebrew scriptures use the Hebrew word for "Angel" many times if Daniel had wished to write that Michael was "One of the Arch Angels" he could have, instead he wrote that Michael was one of the leading angels.

You dismissed my Eisenhower analogy but it explains the situation perfectly....... Eisenhower was "one of the chief Generals" of ww2 yet he was ALSO supreme commander.
If you were to read a description that said he was one of the chief generals would you then argue that he MUST have had others of equal rank? You could argue that but it would be wrong wouldn't it? WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

Look.................... you either need to PROVE that there are multiple Arch Angels from elsewhere or acknowledge that the Daniel account is not definitive on the question either way.
..............................................................

You said earlier that you assume that Gabriel is also an Arch Angel... yet he had to appeal for Michael to help him, what does that say?
...............................................
I don't want to talk about the Trinity, but I want to know where it is written in the Bible that Jesus was created.

Col1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature.

Rev3: 14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God;

Now tell me firstborn doesn't mean the first one born and beginning doesn't mean beginning.
................................................
Yes angels have free will but that does not make them similar to God.

Satans appeal to Eve was that She would be LIKE God if She exercised free will and made Her own choices. Free Will seems to be one of the major things that make us LIKE God... not the Angels apparently.
.................................................
Animals also have free will.

The Word of God is NOT a messenger was a bad enough thing to say but now we get that Animals have FREE WILL. This is just so outside the pale that again i do not even know how to respond.
.................................................
That these faces mean what you claim here is disputed, but if that were true, then they reflect (symbolize) the attributes of God and not their own.

This is torturous reasoning. If i were to "reflect" Gods attributes then i'd say i was 'like" God.

Besides, the cherubim are not angels.

Really? What are they?
.......................................................
This is not to be understood literally, the term "sons of God" which is used for the angels is to be interpreted only as a title.
So..... the Father is NOT the FATHER of the Angles. If he IS the Father then they are his sons, that is how language works.
........................................
↑
Ok.. we humans are obligated to Love but the Angles aren't?
What does the Bible say?

So it seems you are saying that LOVE is not one of the motivations of Angels. I think you need to show me a scripture that paints the Angles as non caring automatons.
.....................................
Did i say that?
As I said, we people have some attributes of God
You are saying that Angels have NONE of the attributes of God. That they are in no way like or similar to God. You believe, i assume, that GOD created the Angels but he did not instill any of his qualities into their creation, to me that just makes no sense.
...........................................

 

[THE Art Vandelay]

Not according to the scriptures.

Yes, according to the scriptures.

 

[JesusKnowsYou]

Yes, according to the scriptures.

They must either be books that I do not consider scripture or a false interpretation of actual scripture.

The Archangel Michael is a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ.

 

[THE Art Vandelay]

They must either be books that I do not consider scripture or a false interpretation of actual scripture.

The Archangel Michael is a servant of the Lord Jesus Christ.

No, the archangel Michael is Jesus.

 

[Katzpur]

I haven't said what I am because that's not a requirement for posting here. Obviousl you don't know what you're talking about and have some kind of ignorant bigotry against Jehovah's Witnesses. That in itself would make it hard for anyone to have respect for you.

I realize it's not a requirement for posting here. On the other hand, most people are proud to let others know what their religious affiliation is. It just makes it easier for everyone concerned if we don't have to guess. Maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but it was a Jehovah's Witness on this forum who explained that, as a JW, she really shouldn't be engaging with non-JWs on a debate forum. If she was wrong, please tell me.

I actually don't have any kind of bigotry against your faith at all, ignorant or otherwise. I respect everyone's right to believe what they want to believe. Pretty much everybody bases their beliefs on something, even when other people may not know what it is. I may disagree with certain JW beliefs, but I wouldn't think of labeling them as "absurd" or "nonsensical" just believe I don't share them. To be perfectly honest, I used to actually defend the JWs against attacks from those who really are bigoted against them. Because I am also part of a group that is often misunderstood and maligned, I could sympathize with the crap the JWs were getting from all of the haters. I no longer come to their defense because they have proven to be just as hostile to me as anyone else, and more so than most. If all JW's could interact with people they don't see eye to eye on as well as @Hockeycowboy, dialogues with them would be much more enjoyable for us all. Hockeycowboy is truly someone I admire and respect, even if we believe differently.

Oh, and by the way, while you may have no respect for me, I can assure you that the vast majority of the people on this forum do.

 

[Katzpur]

Yes, according to the scriptures.

Where in the scriptures, please?

 

[Hockeycowboy]

@Katzpur , thank you for your kind words!

I try. You make it easy....others on here don’t.

 

[Katzpur]

Wow, "copycat". At least now I know I'm dealing with a 10 year old who name-calls and acts hypocritically with insults.

If the word "copycat" doesn't fit, perhaps you could suggest a better one for me to use. To me, someone who quotes me verbatim and then says, "See, I can do that, too," is a copycat.

I am in the position to tell you what you obviously agree with because I can read what YOU are writing.

I have said nothing to indicate that I agree with you.

You have absolutely no basis whatsoever for your nonsensical belief and simply don't like being called out on that. I get it.

I do, though. I just haven't shared my reasons with you because of your attitude. If you will recall, you're the one who apparently felt the need to call my beliefs "absurd" and "nonsensical." I feel that you owe me either a an apology or an explanation of why you used those words to try to demean my beliefs.

Next time you want to debate, try to be civil and not insulting. You'll see how much further it gets you.

You first.

Now, back to the actual argument -- i.e. whether we humans had a pre-mortal existence or not -- will you promise me that you will provide some actual evidence for your belief if I do the same? Or will you just dismiss what I say and not even attempt to actually defend your own position with scriptures that support it?

 

[THE Art Vandelay]

If the word "copycat" doesn't fit, perhaps you could suggest a better one for me to use. To me, someone who quotes me verbatim and then says, "See, I can do that, too," is a copycat.

I have said nothing to indicate that I agree with you.

I do, though. I just haven't shared my reasons with you because of your attitude. If you will recall, you're the one who apparently felt the need to call my beliefs "absurd" and "nonsensical." I feel that you owe me either a an apology or an explanation of why you used those words to try to demean my beliefs.

You first.

Now, back to the actual argument -- i.e. whether we humans had a pre-mortal existence or not -- will you promise me that you will provide some actual evidence for your belief if I do the same? Or will you just dismiss what I say and not even attempt to actually defend your own position with scriptures that support it?

Your beliefs are baseless and ridiculous. Not my fault you won't admit to that fact. My position is defended by the fact that you have ZERO support for your own. The Bible doesn't support you whatsoever.

 

[Terry Sampson]

utter nonsense

"Utter nonsense?" You have me confused with the Relativists.

You're woefully uninformed if you aren't aware of the variety of folks, Christian, Jewish, and heathen who believe in human premortal life. Your use of the term "discerning reader" indicates bias on your part and limited vision and imagination.

 

[THE Art Vandelay]

Oh, and by the way, while you may have no respect for me, I can assure you that the vast majority of the people on this forum do.

And I can assure you that you don't speak for the "vast majority of the people on this forum" to even come close to making your remark true.