Other references
The apostle Paul said, when writing to the Thessalonian congregation about the gathering of God’s anointed holy ones: “The Lord [Jesus Christ] 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.
Pauls expression “archangel’s voice” evidently focuses attention on the authoritativeness of Jesus’ voice of command. Jesus, when on earth, revealed the authority that God invested in him, when he said: “For just as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted also to the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to do judging, because Son of man he is. . . . The hour is coming in which all those in the memorial tombs will hear his voice and come out.”
not Christs vioce, mmmm, you guys have some explaining to do!
No argument as I said before that The Voice is from Christ. It also says with the Trumpet of God. It is comparing Christ voice with that of the archangel and the Trumpet of God. In Revelation it says that John heard one with the voice of a trumpet that sounded like many waters! So was the one speaking a trumpet? or many waters? It's very similar language namely metaphor.
Manny
2 edits
Originally posted by menace71Oh Manny how long have you been with me and you ask to see the father? 😛
No argument as I said before that The Voice is from Christ. It also says with the Trumpet of God. It is comparing Christ voice with that of the archangel and the Trumpet of God. In Revelation it says that John heard one with the voice of a trumpet that sounded like many waters! So was the one speaking a trumpet? or many waters? It's very similar language namely metaphor.
Manny
yes however, that is a proper metaphor the voice AS a trumpet, here there is no such designation! it does not state with the voice like an archangel, does it, oh no no, let us be quite clear! it states with the voice of an archangel!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieThere is no basis that Christ is not an Archangel other than your assertions that this is to be understood metaphorically,
I 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 ...[text shortened]... eally mean 'with', but 'in the midst of',? cmon you Noobs those are as flimsy as it gets.
But of course. Does God really have a trumpet? Where is it? What does it look like? How does a transcendent God, supreme beyond all creation, have a trumpet? You are guilty of imagining God in material terms.
and on what basis, that archangels dont have voices?
They are spiritual beings, of course they don't have voices. Next you will tell me that heaven is in the clouds and hell is underneath the earth and the angels really fly down from the sky while demons claw their way up out of the ground.
that trumpets dont issue forth sounds?
Of course they do.
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.
Actually, I never said that 'with' does not mean 'with'. This seems to be your major argument strategy -- accuse people of beliefs they never expressed. As I explained earlier, 'with' can have a comitative sense indicating accompaniment (I came with a man) and also a circumstantial sense (I came with the bells tolling.) The Greek clearly indicates the latter use. If the comitative sense was wanted, the author would have used the preposition 'syn' or just the plain dative.
This really is absurd. You would think that Jesus Christ who came to reveal the Father would have made it very clear that he is the archangel Michael were that case. But no, according to the JWs, you have to go to the book of Jude then to the epistle to the Thessalonians to figure it out. It was so obscure that it took 1900 years for anyone to even suggest the idea. I would think that the apostles who preached the gospel would have done something better than that.
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KLol, what is absurd is that you dont know what you are getting yourself into, dig this Conrau my man, and behave yourself! All from trinitarian sources i believe!
This really is absurd. You would think that Jesus Christ who came to reveal the Father would have made it very clear that he is the archangel Michael were that case. But no, according to the JWs, you have to go to the book of Jude then to the epistle to the Thessalonians to figure it out. It was so obscure that it took 1900 years for anyone to even suggest ...[text shortened]... ould think that the apostles who preached the gospel would have done something better than that.
Early Christian scholar Origen writes:
"There are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, probably angels]; and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power." - ANF 10:321-322.
Even modern trinitarians sometimes admit that Jesus in his pre-human existence appeared as an angel.
Highly respected trinitarian Bible scholar, Dr. E. F. Scott, Emeritus Professor at the Union Theological Seminary, wrote:
"The author of Hebrews ... thinks of [Jesus] as an angel, whom God had exalted above all others, investing him with his own majesty and calling him by the name of Son." - p. 726, An Encyclopedia of Religion, 1945 ed.
And, again, the very trinitarian The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible tells us that at this time the Jewish expectation was that the Christ was
"a pre-existent, heavenly angelic being who, at the end of time, will appear at the side of God as judge of the world [see Acts 7:55-56]." - p. 364, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, 1962.
"Angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant." - p. 39, Today's Dictionary of the Bible (trinitarian), Bethany House Publ., 1982.
"Angel of the Lord. ... Christ's visible form before the incarnation." - p. 40, Smith's Bible Dictionary (trinitarian), Hendrickson Publ.
"ANGEL OF THE LORD, ... is represented in Scripture as a heavenly being sent by God to deal with men as his personal agent and spokesman [`word'] .... In the NT [which trinitarians agree explains and amplifies the OT] there is no possibility of the angel of the Lord being confused with God. .... mostly when appearing to men he is recognized as a divine being, even though in human form, and is [sometimes] addressed as God" - p. 38, New Bible Dictionary, Tyndale House (trinitarian), 1984 printing.
"The Angel of the LORD.... Traditional [from 2nd century A. D. (at least)] Christian interpretation has held that this `angel' was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God's Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of (and so be identified with) the One [Jehovah] who sent him." - footnote for Gen. 16:7 in the highly trinitarian The NIV Study Bible by Zondervan Publishing, 1985.
source: http://www.blogcatalog.com
1900 years? oh really!
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau Kyes, in the case of the trinity, you would have thought they would have at least taken the time to explain such an important and central doctrine to the strictly monotheistic Jews at some length, would you not! Yet, not even a sniffle of a mention! Yes you may talk of absurdities, this fact ranks among the greatest of them!
This really is absurd. You would think that Jesus Christ who came to reveal the Father would have made it very clear that he is the archangel Michael were that case. But no, according to the JWs, you have to go to the book of Jude then to the epistle to the Thessalonians to figure it out. It was so obscure that it took 1900 years for anyone to even suggest ...[text shortened]... ould think that the apostles who preached the gospel would have done something better than that.
Originally posted by menace71lets see what our friend has to say, he likes to chew the fat a bit. He may try to state that the quotes are taken out of context, or such and such didn't say that at all, or that i have misrepresented them 🙂
Even modern trinitarians sometimes admit that Jesus in his pre-human existence appeared as an angel.
What does angel mean? Messenger right? Maybe it's the use of the word.
Manny
yes Angel can and does mean messenger 🙂
Originally posted by robbie carrobieEarly Christian scholar Origen writes:
Lol, what is absurd is that you dont know what you are getting yourself into, dig this Conrau my man, and behave yourself! All from trinitarian sources i believe!
Early Christian scholar Origen writes:
"There are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, probably angels]; and of these Christ was the high ...[text shortened]... ing, 1985.
source: http://www.blogcatalog.com
1900 years? oh really!
"There are certain creatures, rational and divine, which are called powers [spirit creatures, probably angels]; and of these Christ was the highest and best and is called not only the wisdom of God but also His power." - ANF 10:321-322.
Firstly, Origen is not considered an orthodox teacher of the faith. He was widely condemned in his own era. Secondly, I do not recognise this work. What is that ANF? I cannot judge what Origen intended here without knowing the work and its context.
Highly respected trinitarian Bible scholar, Dr. E. F. Scott, Emeritus Professor at the Union Theological Seminary, wrote:
"The author of Hebrews ... thinks of [Jesus] as an angel, whom God had exalted above all others, investing him with his own majesty and calling him by the name of Son." - p. 726, An Encyclopedia of Religion, 1945 ed.
Hebrews explicitly repudiates the notion that Jesus is an angel. It says so 1:6. This author does not seem to be an orthodox trinitarian since he seems to present a case of adoptionism for the divinity of Christ.
And, again, the very trinitarian The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible tells us that at this time the Jewish expectation was that the Christ was
"a pre-existent, heavenly angelic being who, at the end of time, will appear at the side of God as judge of the world [see Acts 7:55-56]." - p. 364, Vol. 3, Abingdon Press, 1962.
Yes, and? It is one thing to call a being angelic, another to say that it is an angel.
"Angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant." - p. 39, Today's Dictionary of the Bible (trinitarian), Bethany House Publ., 1982.
Yes. And John the Baptist is also called an angel:
This is he of whom it is written: Behold I send my angel before your face, who shall prepare your way before you. (Luke 7:28)
Others are also identified as angels of the Lord, such as the angel Gabriel who appears to Mary.
1900 years? oh really!
Yes, really. I am flabbergasted. I know you probably got all this stuff from a Watchtower magazine with the quotes all butchered up. I have seen this done before. Amazingly you can never produce the quotes in full and when I do find them they absolutely misrepresent the author. I find this totally uncompelling because none of these quotes actually associate Jesus with the archangel Michael. No reputable scholar ever has.
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI don't think they ever needed to. They clearly prayed to Jesus, asked for his grace. The Christian communities clearly invoked the Holy Spirit and believed him to be their teacher. They did not have the philosophical vocabulary to verbalise how all three were God yet it is clearly something they believed.
yes, in the case of the trinity, you would have thought they would have at least taken the time to explain such an important and central doctrine to the strictly monotheistic Jews at some length, would you not! Yet, not even a sniffle of a mention! Yes you may talk of absurdities, this fact ranks among the greatest of them!
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou bet. I know that your sources are deceptive and I have proved it in the past.
lets see what our friend has to say, he likes to chew the fat a bit. He may try to state that the quotes are taken out of context, or such and such didn't say that at all, or that i have misrepresented them
1 edit
Originally posted by Conrau KLol a truly pathetic excuse!
I don't think they ever needed to. They clearly prayed to Jesus, asked for his grace. The Christian communities clearly invoked the Holy Spirit and believed him to be their teacher. They did not have the philosophical vocabulary to verbalise how all three were God yet it is clearly something they believed.