Michael the archangel revisited

Originally posted by Suzianne
Oh, sure. Give him the cheat sheet.

I was waiting for him to figure it out himself. (Yeah, I know, I could grow old waiting for that one.)

I doubt He will accept it anyway, coming from me.

Originally posted by RJHinds, to divegeester
Don't you get it yet? The one you call Jehovah (really Yahweh) is the God that was made flesh and dwelt among men and died on the cross as the Savior to all that will accept Him.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

He gets it, Ron. It's obvious from nearly everything he's written on it. It's just that we call him God, but he calls him Jesus. So it's not (in his view) that Jesus is God, but that God is Jesus. Everything else is nearly the same as traditional Trinity belief.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
(Jude 9) But when Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was
disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgement against him in
abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.”

(1 Thessalonians 4:16) because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a
commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and wit ...[text shortened]... since his return to heaven where he resides
as the glorified spirit Son of God.

nuff said.

"Would it be appropriate to liken Jesus’ commanding call to that of someone lesser in authority?"

Or perhaps someone with lesser authority voicing the commanding call of God? But that's not right because that's not what the verse says!

Besides, your comparative verses don't support your inference.

1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:

Looks to me that it is The Lord Jesus Christ here shouting with the voice of the archangel. That's what it says, and that's all it means.

Jude 1:9
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.

Where is the connection in these two verses that could possibly be seen as Jesus and Michael being one and the same? That is just obtuse robbie! The translation you use has been altered to read a meaning into the verse not found in the scriptures.

"Reasonably, then, the archangel Michael is Jesus Christ."

Is this an example of exegesis? I'm at a loss for words to describe how disappointed I am that you can't do better than using five references to the archangel Michael to support your contention. This is by far the worse example of proof texting I've ever seen.

"So the evidence indicates that the Son of God was known as Michael before he came to earth and is known also by that name since his return to heaven where he resides as the glorified spirit Son of God."

That ain't evidence. That's just pure presumptuousness.

You have been shown hundreds of verses that clearly, clearly show who the Son of God is. But I'm going to bide my time and save the best for last.

"nuff said."

You haven't said anything yet robbie. I suspect you cut and pasted some of it. Is what you've provide above as evidence all you've got for the identity of the pre-incarnate existence of Jesus Christ?

Originally posted by Suzianne
He gets it, Ron. It's obvious from nearly everything he's written on it. It's just that we call him God, but he calls him Jesus. So it's not (in his view) that Jesus is God, but that God is Jesus. Everything else is nearly the same as traditional Trinity belief.

Then why does he not believe what Jesus says about everlasting torment in the Lake of fire and Brimstone for the unbelievers?

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Would it be appropriate to liken Jesus’ commanding call to that of someone lesser in authority?"

Or perhaps someone with lesser authority voicing the commanding call of God? But that's not right because that's not what the verse says!

Besides, your comparative verses don't support your inference.

1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord himself s ...[text shortened]... bove as evidence all you've got for the identity of the pre-incarnate existence of Jesus Christ?[/b]

Exactly, Joe. I'm glad someone sees this as what it is.

But this is to be expected when they make up their dogma out of whole cloth and then craft their Bible around it.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Don't you get it yet? The one you call Jehovah (really Yahweh) is the God that was made flesh and dwelt among men and died on the cross as the Savior to all that will accept Him.

I'm asking Raik999 a question about his beliefs.

As for what I believe, I've posted it in this forum so many times and I'm tired of repeatedly having to explain to the likes of you especially when you and I have personally exchanged many comments on the subject.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Then why does he not believe what Jesus says about everlasting torment in the Lake of fire and Brimstone for the unbelievers?

C'mon, Ron, even I don't believe that. Give me your scripture reference.

There's a pretty big difference between Trinity doctrine and the "eternal torment" doctrine. One can believe one but not the other. I don't see why you have to necessarily believe both.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Then why does he not believe what Jesus says about everlasting torment in the Lake of fire and Brimstone for the unbelievers?

I don't believe it because I think your interpretation is wrong. I've told you this hundreds of times you infuriating oaf.

Originally posted by divegeester
I don't believe it because I think your interpretation is wrong. I've told you this hundreds of times you infuriating oaf.

Wrong interpretation, yes. Just like his "6000-year-old-earth" belief. Only that one is a bit more obvious. 🙂

Originally posted by Suzianne
C'mon, Ron, even I don't believe that. Give me your scripture reference.

There's a pretty big difference between Trinity doctrine and the "eternal torment" doctrine. One can believe one but not the other. I don't see why you have to necessarily believe both.

I know. You believe in the false doctrine of theistic evolution and billions of years of past history and I believe what is literally written in Genesis chapter one.

Originally posted by Rajk999
There is no such passage in the Bible as 1 John 1:20.

In any case 1 John 1:2-3 says"
[i](For the life was manifested, and we have seen it, and bear witness, and shew unto you that eternal life, which was with the Father, and was manifested unto us) That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly ...[text shortened]... ITH THE FATHER AND WITH HIS SON JESUS CHRIST.

Sounds like two separate and distinct entities.

Distinct, not separate.

Originally posted by josephw
[b]"Would it be appropriate to liken Jesus’ commanding call to that of someone lesser in authority?"

Or perhaps someone with lesser authority voicing the commanding call of God? But that's not right because that's not what the verse says!

Besides, your comparative verses don't support your inference.

1 Thessalonians 4:16
For the Lord himself s ...[text shortened]... bove as evidence all you've got for the identity of the pre-incarnate existence of Jesus Christ?[/b]

I dont believe you Joseph, your opinions are meaningless without any substantiating reason, for example, 'that's obtuse', meaningless, 'the translation has been altered', meaningless drivel, evidence nil, 'i am at a loss for words', no one cares whether you are at a loss for words Jospeh, its meaningless in this context, do you understand? Your opinions are meaningless. 'This is the worse example of proof', a demonstrably false assertion, your claim that Jesus is equal to God because he stated that he had kept on working was worse. I am sorry but please unless you have any evidence for your claims spare me your meaningless opinions, seriously, think of other people, they have to read it.

Originally posted by Suzianne
Exactly, Joe. I'm glad someone sees this as what it is.

But this is to be expected when they make up their dogma out of whole cloth and then craft their Bible around it.

another essentially meaningless opinion, evidence nil. Please think of other people prior to posting, they need to read the kind of drivel that you post.

Originally posted by sonship
Distinct, not separate.

Could it be 1 John 5:1-20 ?

Originally posted by divegeester
In the OT Jehovah says through Isaiah many times that he is the only saviour and that he will not give his glory to another.

How do you reconcile that?

I dont need to reconcile anything. Christ was clear:
- His Father is greater than Him.
Paul was clear:
- The head of Christ is God.