The Book of Revelation (12:7-9) describes a war in heaven in which Michael, being stronger, defeats Satan:[12]
"...there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven."
After the conflict, Satan is thrown to earth along with the fallen angels, where he ("that ancient serpent called the devil" still tries to "lead the whole world astray"[12]
Separately, in the Epistle of Jude 1:9 Michael is specifically referred to as an "archangel" when he again confronts Satan:[13]
"Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses"
A reference to an "archangel" also appears in the First Epistle to the Thessalonians 4:16
"... 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" (American Standard Version of 1901, a version that uses the definite article, "the archangel", absent in the original Greek and in English translations (such as the English Standard Version of 2001, which has: "the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet of God".
This archangel who heralds the second coming of Christ is not named,[13] but is probably Michael.[14]
Seventh-day Adventists believe that Michael is another name for the Heavenly Christ, and another name for the Word-of-God (as in John 1) before he became incarnate as Jesus. "Archangel" (meaning "Chief of the Angels) was the leadership position held by the Word-of-God as Michael while among the angels. According to Adventist theology, Michael was considered the "eternal Word", and not a created being or created angel, and the one by whom all things were created. The Word was then born incarnate as Jesus.[62]
Jehovah's Witnesses believe Michael to be another name for Jesus Christ in heaven, in his pre-human and post-resurrection existence.[56] They say the definite article at Jude 9—referring to "Michael the archangel"—identifies Michael as the only archangel. They consider Michael to be synonymous with Jesus, described at 1 Thessalonians 4:16 as descending "with a cry of command, with the voice of an archangel, and with the sound of the trumpet".[57][58][59]
what scriptural basis is therefore believing that Christ is also the archangel Michael
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI think most of us know what you JWs believe about this, however, we Christians believe you JWs are wrong.
The Book of Revelation (12:7-9) describes a war in heaven in which Michael, being stronger, defeats Satan:[12]
"...there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven."
After the conflict, Satan is thrown to ea ...[text shortened]... 8][59]
what scriptural basis is therefore believing that Christ is also the archangel Michael
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThis is all spun from the JW dogma that Christ is a "created being", and therefore[sic] could not have been "with God" in the beginning. It's amazing what gymnastics have to be done to appear correct when you get the first thing wrong.
The Book of Revelation (12:7-9) describes a war in heaven in which Michael, being stronger, defeats Satan:[12]
"...there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven."
After the conflict, Satan is thrown to ea ...[text shortened]... 8][59]
what scriptural basis is therefore believing that Christ is also the archangel Michael
Drop that one dogmatic miscue, and suddenly it all becomes clearer.
Also, the archangel who usually has the job of "heralding God" is Gabriel. Michael is traditionally the "warrior angel".
And as for Adventist dogma, they are second only to JWs for dogma made up from whole cloth.
Originally posted by Suzianneactually the Bible states that Christ was created,
This is all spun from the JW dogma that Christ is a "created being", and therefore[sic] could not have been "with God" in the beginning. It's amazing what gymnastics have to be done to appear correct when you get the first thing wrong.
Drop that one dogmatic miscue, and suddenly it all becomes clearer.
Also, the archangel who usually has the j ...[text shortened]... .
And as for Adventist dogma, they are second only to JWs for dogma made up from whole cloth.
(Colossians 1:15) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation
perhaps you would like to tell us what the firstborn of all creation actually means if Christ is not part of the creation as the text clearly indicates.
and for your information the entire text was taken from wikipedia, if you have any complaints about its accuracy i suggest you write to them.
- Joined
- 16 Jan 07
- Moves
- 95105
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewhy does michael/jesus need to 'fight' satan? seems like a waste of time and energy, why didnt the big 'g' just click his fingers or wiggle his nose and pop satan on earth?
The Book of Revelation (12:7-9) describes a war in heaven in which Michael, being stronger, defeats Satan:[12]
"...there was war in heaven. Michael and his angels fought against the dragon, and the dragon and his angels fought back. But he was not strong enough, and they lost their place in heaven."
After the conflict, Satan is thrown to ea ...[text shortened]... 8][59]
what scriptural basis is therefore believing that Christ is also the archangel Michael
Originally posted by stellspalfiehard to say, Satan is quote powerful he drags a third of the angels with him.
why does michael/jesus need to 'fight' satan? seems like a waste of time and energy, why didnt the big 'g' just click his fingers or wiggle his nose and pop satan on earth?
Originally posted by stellspalfiecan I ask you what you make of the scripture, would you be liable to conclude that Christ was a part of creation from reading it.
why does michael/jesus need to 'fight' satan? seems like a waste of time and energy, why didnt the big 'g' just click his fingers or wiggle his nose and pop satan on earth?
Originally posted by robbie carrobieAs has already been pointed out to you, Wikipedia is no more a reliable interpreter of biblical scripture than the watchtower. Why you would hold up a secular source as authority I have no idea.
actually the Bible states that Christ was created,
(Colossians 1:15) He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation
perhaps you would like to tell us what the firstborn of all creation actually means if Christ is not part of the creation as the text clearly indicates.
and for your information the entire text was taken from wikipedia, if you have any complaints about its accuracy i suggest you write to them.
Originally posted by divegeesterplease point out the inaccuracy of the text that is cited if you claim that its inaccurate and wikipedia is used because its independent and therefore no one can claim bias as a valid argument. We have already established quite unequivocally that you have no idea, never the less, its nice of you to confirm it.
As has already been pointed out to you, Wikipedia is no more a reliable interpreter of biblical scripture than the watchtower. Why you would hold up a secular source as authority I have no idea.
Originally posted by robbie carrobiePerhaps YOU can explain for US, o translation master, how Paul came to use an inaccurate Greek word, then; "firstborn", instead of "first created" if that is, in fact, what he meant.
please point out the inaccuracy of the text that is cited if you claim that its inaccurate and wikipedia is used because its independent and therefore no one can claim bias as a valid argument. We have already established quite unequivocally that you have no idea, never the less, its nice of you to confirm it.
Apparently, a "translation master" would know of alternative meanings for the Greek word for "firstborn", and we can only guess you're not telling us. This points towards willful deception.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI could point to your whole JW doctrinal encyclopaedia starting with:
please point out the inaccuracy of the text that is cited if you claim that its inaccurate and wikipedia is used because its independent and therefore no one can claim bias as a valid argument. We have already established quite unequivocally that you have no idea, never the less, its nice of you to confirm it.
We have 2 gods
We have 2 saviours
1 of the gods is the 'lesser' god
This 'god' is actually an angel
This god-angel combo was also created by the other 'big' god
You believe all this error and treat those who question you with derision and incredulousness. Yet here you are pontificating over scriptural nuances looking to convince us plebeians that you are the sole holders of gods truth on earth.
Robbie...stop straining at the gnats while swallowing the camels.
Originally posted by Suziannethe actual question is this,
Perhaps YOU can explain for US, o translation master, how Paul came to use an inaccurate Greek word, then; "firstborn", instead of "first created" if that is, in fact, what he meant.
Apparently, a "translation master" would know of alternative meanings for the Greek word for "firstborn", and we can only guess you're not telling us. This points towards willful deception.
Is Jesus or is he not part of the creation or what did Paul mean by first born OF all creation. This is my question which as yet you have failed to answer.
After this is answered then we can return to the term that Paul used for firstborn and why it may be relevant. As I stated before the term first-born occurs more than thirty times in the Bible prior to its use at colossians and each time it was used with regard to progeny.
your irrelevancies will be ignored as unworthy of serious comment.
Originally posted by divegeesterYou have not pointed out why the wikipedia article should be considered inaccurate because it reports the beliefs of others, you were not asked whether the beliefs of Jehovahs witnesses were accurate your claim was that wikipedia is inaccurate in itself, to date you have produced no evidence for the claim. Even if it reports the beliefs of others which you consider false it may do so accurately, so we shall ask you once again,
I could point to your whole JW doctrinal encyclopaedia starting with:
We have 2 gods
We have 2 saviours
1 of the gods is the 'lesser' god
This 'god' is actually an angel
This god-angel combo was also created by the other 'big' god
You believe all this error and treat those who question you with derision and incredulousness. Yet here you are pon ...[text shortened]... ers of gods truth on earth.
Robbie...stop straining at the gnats while swallowing the camels.
please provide evidence that wikipedia has reported those beliefs inaccurately or admit that it has portrayed those views accurately. It does not seek to interpret anyone's beliefs merely report them making the insinuation that it does, quite ludicrous.