Archangel Michael

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
what is this? we use the bible to establish points and we are damned.

(Acts 17:2-3) . . .So according to Paul’s custom he went inside to them, and for three
sabbaths he reasoned with them [b]from the Scriptures,  explaining and proving by
references that it was necessary for the Christ to suffer. . .[/b]

Are you saying the Book of Enoch is not scripture because it was not used
widely enough to be made part of the canon by the Holy Roman Church
and only the Eqyptian Orthodox Christian Church has it as a part of their
canon of scripture today? Who do you accept as the authority on what is
scripture? Are you the authority?

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Now why didn't Paul use that when he was reasoning with the Jews and providing
references from some other source! do tell.

Come ON, Robbie, I'm talking to you as a Christian.

You must know from experience here that arguing with non-Christians and saying "well, the Bible doesn't contain every iota of knowledge about God" would get you a "pfffft, cop out" from them.

And what do you mean "some other source"? There is no source of authority greater than the Bible. What is it with you and literalism? Just because it's not in the Bible doesn't mean it's in some other source. I simply maintain that there are some things man is not supposed to know. And just because YOU don't rate them as "that important" doesn't mean they aren't. We will never know the mind of God, not in this life. To assume that you do, is quite arrogant.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am quoting from "THE OTHER BIBLE" Jewish Pseudepigrapha,
Christian Apocrypha, Gnostic Scriptures, Kabbalah, Dead Sea Scrolls
1984, Edited with Introductions by Willis Barnstone

The translation is stated to be from R.H. Charles, The Apocrypha and
Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament

That's strange, since this is R.H. Charles' translation of the relevant passage:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe022.htm

And yet the term 'archangel' never appears...

EDIT: Oops, sorry! 'Archangel' appears once, in a different passage. It's at Enoch Chapter 79, Verse 6. "Such is the picture and sketch of every luminary which Uriel the archangel, who is their leader, showed unto me."

Originally posted by RJHinds
Are you saying the Book of Enoch is not scripture because it was not used
widely enough to be made part of the canon by the Holy Roman Church
and only the Eqyptian Orthodox Christian Church has it as a part of their
canon of scripture today? Who do you accept as the authority on what is
scripture? Are you the authority?

Its not in my Bible, now you would think that if God had wanted it to be there he might
have done something about it, but nooo, its not there, how strange.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Come ON, Robbie, I'm talking to you as a Christian.

You must know from experience here that arguing with non-Christians and saying "well, the Bible doesn't contain every iota of knowledge about God" would get you a "pfffft, cop out" from them.

And what do you mean "some other source"? There is no source of authority greater than the Bible. What is i ...[text shortened]... ow the mind of God, not in this life. To assume that you do, is quite arrogant.

talk to me as a human i am human, flesh and blood, like you and the atheists and all
other people. Our reasoning is based solely upon that which can be substantiated
scripturally, all else is conjecture.

Originally posted by bbarr
That's strange, since this is R.H. Charles' translation of the relevant passage:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe022.htm

And yet the term 'archangel' never appears...

Maybe the editor added that then. I do not have the orignal text to know
if it should be in there or not. As I asked before does archangel appear
anywhere in your translation? Perhaps maybe with Michael.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe the editor added that then. I do not have the orignal text to know
if it should be in there or not. As I asked before does archangel appear
anywhere in your translation? Perhaps maybe with Michael.

See my edit, above. It does appear once in reference to Uriel and once in reference to Michael.

Edit: But, in the Oxford University translation of the Book of Enoch, 'archangel' appears only once, in reference to Michael. Uriel is referred to as 'the great angel'.

Originally posted by bbarr
That's strange, since this is R.H. Charles' translation of the relevant passage:

http://www.sacred-texts.com/bib/boe/boe022.htm

And yet the term 'archangel' never appears...

EDIT: Oops, sorry! 'Archangel' appears once, in a different passage. It's at Enoch Chapter 79, Verse 6. "Such is the picture and sketch of every luminary which Uriel the archangel, who is their leader, showed unto me."

Do you see that to mean Uriel is leader of the archangels?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Do you see that to mean Uriel is leader of the archangels?

I don't know. The Oxford University Press Translation of the Book of Enoch only refers to Michael as an archangel. Uriel is referred to as 'great angel'. You make the call. I'm tired of reading articles on translations of the B.O.E.

Rather than being merely "one of the foremost princes," Jesus Christ is "Lord of lords and King of kings" (Rev. 17:14, NWT) and is "far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come" (Ephesians 1:21, NWT).

Unlike "Michael who did not dare condemn the Devil with insulting words, but said, The Lord rebuke you!" (Jude 9), Jesus Christ displayed His authority over the devil when He freely commanded him, "Go away, Satan!" (Matthew 4:10, NWT).

Angels consistently refuse worship ("Be careful! Do not do that! …Worship God," Revelation 22:8,9, NWT). But the Fathers command concerning the Son is, "Let all Gods angels worship him" (Hebrews 1:6). This is how the Watchtowers own New World Translation read for some 20 years until, in 1970, the Society changed it to read "do obeisance to him" instead of “worship him".

Author: David A. Reed, Ex-Jehovah's Witness elder.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
Its not in my Bible, now you would think that if God had wanted it to be there he might
have done something about it, but nooo, its not there, how strange.

But the Letter of Jude 1:14-15 makes reference to the Book of Enoch, and
I am sure God would expect us to put 2 and 2 together.

Originally posted by bbarr
I don't know. The Oxford University Press Translation of the Book of Enoch only refers to Michael as an archangel. Uriel is referred to as 'great angel'. You make the call. I'm tired of reading articles on translations of the B.O.E.

Without having the original text to look up the words in the Lexicon, I
guess we will have to let it go for now.

Originally posted by divegeester
Rather than being merely "one of the foremost princes," Jesus Christ is "Lord of lords and King of kings" (Rev. 17:14, NWT) and is "far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come" (Ephesians 1:21, NWT).

Unlike "Michael who did not dare condemn the Devil nstead of “worship him".

Author: David A. Reed, Ex-Jehovah's Witness elder.

I forgot about that. In the book of Daniel, instead of archangel, Daniel
refers to the angel Michael as "one of the Chief Princes" so that means
he is not the chief but just one of them. So maybe, Enoch's account is
correct and Uriel is the leader of the Archangels.

P.S. I found it. (Daniel 10:10-14 NASB)
Then behold, a hand touched me and set me trembling on my hands and
knees. He said to me, “O Daniel, man of [m]high esteem, understand the
words that I am about to tell you and stand [n]upright, for I have now been
sent to you.” And when he had spoken this word to me, I stood up trembling.
Then he said to me, “Do not be afraid, Daniel, for from the first day that you
set your heart on understanding this and on humbling yourself before your
God, your words were heard, and I have come in response to your words. 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. Now I have come to give you an
understanding of what will happen to your people in the latter days, for the
vision pertains to the days yet future.”

Daniel calls these angels princes so Michael is just one of the chief princes.
Gabriel is mentioned earlier so He is also a chief prince or archangel.

Originally posted by divegeester
Rather than being merely "one of the foremost princes," Jesus Christ is "Lord of lords and King of kings" (Rev. 17:14, NWT) and is "far above every government and authority and power and lordship and every name named, not only in this system of things, but also in that to come" (Ephesians 1:21, NWT).

Unlike "Michael who did not dare condemn the Devil ...[text shortened]... nstead of “worship him".

Author: David A. Reed, Ex-Jehovah's Witness elder.

ex witness, haha, whats he doing now, wearing an orange smock having shaved his
head and pinging a triangle? I told you I am interested in what can be established
scripturally not the opinions of disgruntled apostates whom we deem unworthy and
kick out of our awesome organisation. I told you already and bbar to his credit has
acknowledged the discrepancies in the use of the term 'worship', in translation. Its
impossible to discuss it with you because you either do not know or are unwilling to
look at the Greek terms, nor will you ever know unless you do, your position therefore
is always one of religious bias and preconception, always. Why remonstrate with
someone who is not open minded enough to consider that yes they may be
mistaken, or yes, there are other points of view.

you acknowledge in Isaiah that Christ is prince of peace, yet deny it that he could
possibly be a foremost prince, why is that? because of your dogmatic approach
perhaps. It has already been asserted that worship belongs to no one but the
father, your last argument then is utter straw, because we do not hold that Christ is
the father, why are you applying arguments to us on the basis of what you profess,
rather than what we do, answer, because you have a one dimensional approach to
scripture, that is why.

if you want to discuss the term do obeisance and the resulting Greek terms then do
so, there was a plethora of Greek terms given each one with distinct meanings. It
is of note that the translators of Christendom acknowledge that doing obeisance
means bowing down or prostrating oneself, but suddenly when it comes to Christ it
means worship, why? simply because they have a religious bias and a preconceived
idea as to the nature of Christ, how else shall you explain their inconsistent use of
the term where in one instance it means prostrating oneself and when it comes to
Christ it suddenly becomes and act of worship!!! if you know anything about it as
you claim, then explain it to the forum, why have they done so?

Originally posted by RJHinds
I forgot about that. In the book of Daniel, instead of archangel, Daniel
refers to the angel Michael as "one of the Chief Princes" so that means
he is not the chief but just one of them. So maybe, Enoch's account is
correct and Uriel is the leader of the Archangels.

P.S. I found it. (Daniel 10:10-14 NASB)
Then behold, a hand touched me and set ...[text shortened]... f the chief princes.
Gabriel is mentioned earlier so He is also a chief prince or archangel.

There is one archangel mentioned in the Bible, in the singular, never in the plural. The
angels name is Michael, your statement that Gabriel is an archangel is false and
unsubstantiated by scripture.