Michael the archangel

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
You 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 wh ...[text shortened]... erpret anyone's beliefs merely report them making the insinuation that it does, quite ludicrous.

I'm sorry I'm chuckling here; I confess to finding it amusing that you get irritated when is ME who won't answer YOUR questions.

😵

Originally posted by divegeester
I'm sorry I'm chuckling here; I confess to finding it amusing that you get irritated when is ME who won't answer YOUR questions.

😵

I am not irritated, the fact that you need to be reeled in time and again is not a reflection of me, but of you.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I am not irritated, the fact that you need to be reeled in time and again is not a reflection of me, but of you.

Now look here Christmas pudding breath...

...oh whatever, I give in, please just tell me what to believe and make my life so much easier.

Originally posted by divegeester
Now look here Christmas pudding breath...

...oh whatever, I give in, please just tell me what to believe and make my life so much easier.

The opening remarks from wikipedia cites several texts, you may make reference to them.

Originally posted by Suzianne
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.

Yes, that is what happens when one tells a lie and tries to justify and defend it.

Originally posted by robbie carrobie
the actual question is this,

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 m ...[text shortened]... ed with regard to progeny.

your irrelevancies will be ignored as unworthy of serious comment.

That has been answered in your other thread. Remember that all the angels of heaven are commanded to worship the only begotten Son of God, not created, but begotten.

You know we are always slamming on the JWs but there is some room for what RC is saying. Michael means captain of God or Prince of God and Angel means messenger of God (and in the ultimate sense) Jesus was indeed the ultimate messenger of God. In the context of Michael and his angels waging war with the serpent and his angels it sounds a lot like Jesus.

Manny

Originally posted by RJHinds
That has been answered in your other thread. Remember that all the angels of heaven are commanded to worship the only begotten Son of God, not created, but begotten.

more irrelevancy to be ignored

Originally posted by menace71
You know we are always slamming on the JWs but there is some room for what RC is saying. Michael means captain of God or Prince of God and Angel means messenger of God (and in the ultimate sense) Jesus was indeed the ultimate messenger of God. In the context of Michael and his angels waging war with the serpent and his angels it sounds a lot like Jesus.

Manny

Thankyou Manfred.

Originally posted by menace71
You know we are always slamming on the JWs but there is some room for what RC is saying. Michael means captain of God or Prince of God and Angel means messenger of God (and in the ultimate sense) Jesus was indeed the ultimate messenger of God. In the context of Michael and his angels waging war with the serpent and his angels it sounds a lot like Jesus.

Manny

Yes, but you seem to overlook the fact that Michael is a created being like Gabriel.

Originally posted by menace71
You know we are always slamming on the JWs but there is some room for what RC is saying. Michael means captain of God or Prince of God and Angel means messenger of God (and in the ultimate sense) Jesus was indeed the ultimate messenger of God. In the context of Michael and his angels waging war with the serpent and his angels it sounds a lot like Jesus.

Manny

Manny!

For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son”? But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.” And of the angels He says: “Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame of fire.” But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; a scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, Your God, has anointed You with the oil of gladness more than Your companions.” And: “You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the work of Your hands. They will perish, but You remain; and they will all grow old like a garment; like a cloak You will fold them up, and they will be changed. But You are the same, and Your years will not fail.” But to which of the angels has He ever said: “Sit at My right hand, till I make Your enemies Your footstool”?

Heb 1:5-13

The revelation of Jesus Christ and who he is the single most important aspect of spiritual life for any Christian. He was crucified for it, Peter denied him for it and we are commanded to stand and proclaim it. Jesus Christ is Lord.

Originally posted by divegeester
Manny!

For to which of the angels did He ever say: “You are My Son, today I have begotten You”? And again: “I will be to Him a Father, and He shall be to Me a Son”? But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: “Let all the angels of God worship Him.” And of the angels He says: “Who makes His angels spirits and His ministers a flame ...[text shortened]... it, Peter denied him for it and we are commanded to stand and proclaim it. Jesus Christ is Lord.

perhaps you can comment on the ideas that Manfred cites and if we are to be accurate Peter denied being with Jesus, how you get from denying to be with Jesus or knowing him and the disciples to denying that Jesus is Lord you can perhaps explain for its not entirely apparent from the text.

I'm not sure why this language is used but I've always wondered about that passage. Michael wages war with the serpent? Now I know the JWs have another meaning many times for what seems to be plain but I think we have to ask the question. I would say let's look at the original languages. The Captain or prince of God wages war with the serpent who else can this be ? I've always wondered because it sure sounds a lot like Jesus.

Manny

I'll give you a perfect example of odd language. Every time when Jesus tells John now write to the church at Whichever place It reads To the angel at Ephesus write this ......now do you think this means a literal angel was at every church? Or could mean to the messenger of each church write thus and thus ? I think the passage about Michael and his angels waging war with Satan and his angels is very similar

Manny

Revelation 19:10 NASB

Then I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do that; I am a fellow servant of yours and your brethren who hold the testimony of Jesus; worship God. For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

there is no argument that men are not to worship angels


Manny