2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobiewhy does he have an archangels voice if he is not an archangel? Lions have lions voices, humans have human voices, dont archangels have archangels voices?
why does he have an archangels voice if he is not an archangel? Lions have lions voices, humans have human voices, dont archangels have archangels voices? if not, why does it suddenly change in this verse? this i have found with trinitarians, in almost every occasion, when presented with a precedent, it suddenly changes when it comes to Christ, for ...[text shortened]... e sudden change? he has an archangels voice without actually being an archangel, why the change?
As I explained before, the grammar in this passage indicates the circumstances of Christ's descent. It saying that Christ will descend amidst these things.
Furthermore, St Paul is using a poetic technique called synecdoche here. Synecdoche is a technique in which the author substitutes something for something broader or mores specific. For example, Frank Sinatra is otherwise known as 'Old blue eyes'. So when St Paul says that Jesus will descend with an archangel's voice and with God's trumpet, he means amidst the sound of an archangel's voice and the call of God's trumpet. To interpret this as a statement that Jesus is an archangel misses the whole eschatological significance of this passage, the signs that will accompany this event.
this i have found with trinitarians, in almost every occasion, when presented with a precedent, it suddenly changes when it comes to Christ, for example, he is not really first born of all creation as in progeny, but pre eminent, why the sudden change, every other instance refers to progeny?
This is just dishonest. I gave an example in the psalms and all you gave was a flimsy response that it must be referring to Jesus even though God clearly refers to him as David.
he is begotten, but without the begetting , as in progeny, why the sudden change?
As I said, mainstream Trinitarianism repudiates that. There is no 'unoriginated begetting' as you call it.
Originally posted by Conrau Kthe translation clearly states that Christ himself, please note that word Conrau, Christ himself descends with an archangels voice, there is no basis for assuming that he descends amidst the sound of the archangels voice, for the sound emanates from Christ HIMSELF! You may resort to the usual trickery but i am not buying it, anyone reading the passage with a clear and unbiased mind can clearly determine that the voice issues forth from Christ, and not some grammatical and rhetorical trickiness stating that he is in the midst of archangels voices, for clearly the voice is singular, attached to Christ HIMSELF and emanates from Christ!
[b]why does he have an archangels voice if he is not an archangel? Lions have lions voices, humans have human voices, dont archangels have archangels voices?
As I explained before, the grammar in this passage indicates the circumstances of Christ's descent. It saying that Christ will descend amidst these things.
Furthermore, St Paul is usi ...[text shortened]... am Trinitarianism repudiates that. There is no 'unoriginated begetting' as you call it.[/b]
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIn my view, bear in mind i am a layman who has no real interest in theology, but i can give a completely impartial view on this as i have no agenda. The text, in my reading, is metaphorical and isn't indicating that Christ is the archangel.
here is the verse, Conrau in his attempt to negate the idea, stated that the voice of the Archangel does not actually emanate from Christ, but from 'around' him, the basis for which he gave a rather weak illustration which one could flick away as one does a bothersome fly from ones lapel and a dodgy translation that he 'preferred', mmm, i wonder why? ...[text shortened]... h God’s trumpet. . .
you will of course note that the reference is to Christ himself.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by Proper Knobmetaphorical for what dear Noobster? and i thought you were my friend and here you are taking sides with my enemies! fast friend indeed! Please state dear Noobster, in your learned opinion, does the text state that the voice emanates from Christ or not?
In my view, bear in mind i am a layman who has no real interest in theology, but i can give a completely impartial view on this as i have no agenda. The text, in my reading, is metaphorical and isn't indicating that Christ is the archangel.
Originally posted by menace71got me, oh no my dear Manny, we are just getting started! so the voice of an archangel emanates from Christ, why thank you, now you, who have stated that it is metaphorical shall state in what sense is it metaphorical!
RC no argument that the voice emanates from Christ. However does this mean that Christ is the or an archangel ? I think we got you on this one.
Manny
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobiethe translation clearly states that Christ himself, please note that word Conrau, Christ himself descends with an archangels voice, there is no basis for assuming that he descends amidst the sound of the archangels voice, for the sound emanates from Christ HIMSELF!
the translation clearly states that Christ himself, please note that word Conrau, Christ himself descends with an archangels voice, there is no basis for assuming that he descends amidst the sound of the archangels voice, for the sound emanates from Christ HIMSELF! You may resort to the usual trickery but i am not buying it, anyone reading the passag ...[text shortened]... voices, for clearly the voice is singular, attached to Christ HIMSELF and emanates from Christ!
The translation is not clear at all. I suggest you return to the original:
hoti autos ho kurios en keleusmati, en phone archangelou kai en salpinge theou
In Latin
ipse Dominus in jussu, et in voce archangeli, et in tuba Dei descendet
The preposition 'en' and 'in' in Greek and Latin normally indicate location. They indicate the circumstances of the event. Modern translations use the preposition 'with' but not in the sense that the commandment and voice emanate with Jesus but that they accompany his descent.
This clearly has to be understood as a synecdoche. A person does not descend in a commandment, in a voice or in a trumpet. St Paul is saying that these things will be present at his return: a commandment, the sounding of the voice of an archangel and the ringing of the trumpet of God.
And menace is right. This is totally metaphorical. God does not have a trumpet and archangel's do not have voices. Both are purely spiritual beings.
3 edits
Originally posted by Conrau Ki told you i am not buying your grammatical persuasions, the voice emanates from Christ. Next you shall be stating that archangels dont have voices? oh wait a minute, you just did, gulp for you! that being the case, how did this happen?
[b]the translation clearly states that Christ himself, please note that word Conrau, Christ himself descends with an archangels voice, there is no basis for assuming that he descends amidst the sound of the archangels voice, for the sound emanates from Christ HIMSELF!
The translation is not clear at all. I suggest you return to the original:
hoti es not have a trumpet and archangel's do not have voices. Both are purely spiritual beings.[/b]
(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 judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.”
did he mime it? play charades? draw a picture? emailed it?
1 edit
Originally posted by menace71gulp , ok Manny, i speak with the voice of a lion but i am not a lion, how many zebras do you think i will manage to scare away from the herd so that i can have them for breakfast! Christ speaks with the voice of an archangel but hes not really an archangel hes a ventriloquist, mmm, interesting theory!
I don't know the Greek but I can say Robbie spoke with the Voice of a lion as he rebuked me! Does that in and of it's self mean that Robbie is a lion? No. The voice emanated from Robbie but Robbie is Robbie not a lion. LOL Man this is fun. 🙂
Manny
ok so lets get it, Conrau states archangels dont have voices, Manny states they do, but they are not really archangels even though they have archangels voices, they are something else and that Christ is a ventriloquist, guys guys, i am a reasonable man. . . .
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiei told you i am not buying your grammatical persuasions, the voice emanates from Christ.
i told you i am not buying your grammatical persuasions, the voice emanates from Christ. Next you shall be stating that archangels dont have voices? oh wait a minute, you just did, gulp for you! that being the case, how did this happen?
(Jude 9) . . .But when Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses body, ...[text shortened]... ut said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.”
did he mime it? play charades? draw a picture? emailed it?
That's a shame. Serious biblical exegesis requires that readers engage with the grammar of the original text.
did he mime it? play charades? draw a picture? emailed it?
It is possible that the angels may take bodily form. God for example turns into a man and fights with Isaac. However, God and angels are not bodily or material in any way and it is wrong to suggest that they have a voice. This should be understood metaphorically. God does not have a trumpet either. This passage is simply saying that when Jesus returns, he will come with a commandment, an archangel will announce him and he will have divine authority.
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobiegulp , ok Manny, i speak with the voice of a lion but i am not a lion, how many zebras do you think i will manage to scare away from the herd so that i can have them for breakfast! Christ speaks with the voice of an archangel but hes not really an archangel hes a ventriloquist, mmm, interesting theory!
gulp , ok Manny, i speak with the voice of a lion but i am not a lion, how many zebras do you think i will manage to scare away from the herd so that i can have them for breakfast! Christ speaks with the voice of an archangel but hes not really an archangel hes a ventriloquist, mmm, interesting theory!
ok so lets get it, Conrau states archangels ...[text shortened]... y are something else and that Christ is a ventriloquist, guys guys, i am a reasonable man. . . .
No. Manny said he couldn't get into the grammatical argument and so said, assuming you were right, he would go along with your argument and show how weak it is. I agree. Even if you do assume that Jesus spoke with an archangel's voice (and exactly what does that mean, does Jesus become a baritone or something?), that does not mean Jesus is an archangel. Manny has clearly shown the absurdity of your reasoning. St Paul is not adverse to metaphor and simile.
Originally posted by Conrau KGod turns into a man?, mmm, i thought it was an angel! before long Conrau you shall be telling me that when Christ was baptised the voice that John heard was not Gods, but a metaphorical sound emanating from the midst of the Jordan river. Can we hear metaphorical sounds?
[b]i told you i am not buying your grammatical persuasions, the voice emanates from Christ.
That's a shame. Serious biblical exegesis requires that readers engage with the grammar of the original text.
did he mime it? play charades? draw a picture? emailed it?
It is possible that the angels may take bodily form. God for example turns i ...[text shortened]... ay and it is wrong to suggest that they have a voice. This should be understood metaphorically.[/b]
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KI see an archangel that does not speak with an archangels voice, how very bemusing. i am sure that if i went to town and started roaring like a lion i should become a great novelty, birds would fly away, zebras would bolt and lionesses would snuggle up to me. There is no basis that Christ is not an Archangel other than your assertions that this is to be understood metaphorically, and on what basis, that archangels dont have voices? that trumpets dont issue forth sounds? that Robbie speaks like a lion? that 'with', doesn't really mean 'with', but 'in the midst of',? cmon you Noobs those are as flimsy as it gets.
[b]gulp , ok Manny, i speak with the voice of a lion but i am not a lion, how many zebras do you think i will manage to scare away from the herd so that i can have them for breakfast! Christ speaks with the voice of an archangel but hes not really an archangel hes a ventriloquist, mmm, interesting theory!
No. Manny said he couldn't get into the gra clearly shown the absurdity of your reasoning. St Paul is not adverse to metaphor and simile.[/b]
Archangel
The prefix “arch,” meaning “chief” or “principal,” implies that there is only one archangel, the chief angel; in the Scriptures, “archangel” is never found in the plural. First Thessalonians 4:16, in speaking of the preeminence of the archangel and the authority of his office, does so in reference to the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ: “The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.” It is, therefore, not without significance that the only name directly associated with the word “archangel” is Michael
clearly one cannot descend in the midst of a single voice, therefore the only alternative we have left is that the voice was emanating from Christ, regardless of our friends grammatical assertions.