Daniel 11:37, The Future Antichrist Will Be A Jew/Hebrew In Decent

That chapter does not say the burning Bush is an Angel. This was the perfect opportunity for God to call himself an angel and he doesn’t. Moses doesn’t go out saying he spoke with an Angel did he? He tells people he spoke with God.

It was an Angel that God chose to get Moses’ attention with the burning Bush. Because we know God and Angels aren’t actually burning bushes, the Bush was just a communication medium.

It was the Lord Jesus who is the Angel of the Lord which I've cited much Scripture about before. You're just resisting truth even when the words are spelled out for you on the page.

Exodus 3:2 And the angel of the LORD appeared unto him in a flame of fire out of the midst of a bush: and he looked, and, behold, the bush burned with fire, and the bush was not consumed.

Good luck to you too.

It’s says an Angel of the Lord, not the lord Jesus himself.

I am not saying that Jesus is one of the created angels. I'm saying by virtue of definition and for purposes of identifying him in the Scriptures, Jesus is called Michael the archangel. The bible never teaches that Jesus was made God from being an existing angel. But an angel is a messenger, that is the definition, and Jesus is the Word and he is the one who exercises the power, cause and effect of his words and delivers it to us. He is the messenger in chief and lord over all angels, both heavenly and on earth which is the definition of arch angel which identifies Jesus as Michael the archangel.

Later you will see that Michael is also the "prince" over Israel performing the prophesies we have been told the Lord Jesus will do, delivering Israel, reviving the dead from their graves to everlasting honor and dishonor, subduing and destroying the devil, etc. The Scriptures let us know with no mistake that Jesus is also called Michael.

What denomination teaches that Michael and Jesus are one in the same? I cant for the life of me understand how anyone can get this from scripture alone.

Don't forget that most of western civics is based on Rome. It may have been based in Europe, but its influence reached North American continent by virtue of English Law which is based on Roman law.

But, just diving into the real subject matter of this thread instead, I think the rise of this person expected is going to be a complete nonspiritual, secular totalitarian type of individual because secularism is becoming its own "religion."

Although, I'll be honest, I'm not sure a person is going to rise up. I'm just too confused about the prophesies.

No denomination. The bible teaches this.
Good luck to you on your journey.

Got it.
So it is you that is twisting Scripture to mean Jesus is Michael the archangel; it is not Scripture itself that gives Jesus that name.

BTW, where in Scripture is Jesus called Michael the Archangel?
Would you say in Jude 9 it is actually Jesus who is being referred to? According to your logic, it is Jesus.

The word is deScent!

Why are you so stubborn and unteachable?

OR, you are dead wrong on this. Hebrews chapter 1 makes it abundantly clear that Jesus is not only distinct from, but superior to the angels... all of them. Jesus is not an angel.

I agree with virtually everything you said, except I am well-versed in the prophecies, and do believe the Antichrist will arise. The "Beast" is both a Kingdom and a King.

A logical fallacy going on here...

Angels are messengers.
Michael the archangel is God's messenger.
Jesus brings God's message.
Jesus is a messenger.
Therefore Jesus is Michael the archangel. (faulty deduction)

Thank you for your post.
They create idols and command their followers to worship them
Christ wants us to keep from idols.

It's called non-sequitur reasoning. It goes on all the time!

JWs teach something like it, but are a Christian cult. Whether you believe Michael was a theophany in the OT is a different matter. I do believe Jesus appeared, pre-incarnation, as theophanies. Of course, he would not yet have been known as Jesus. He would only have been the personification of the Word of God, looking forward to being born as Jesus.

That’s not even remotely true.

Really, to be honest, I just don't know anything about churches or denominations. I was raised in a Presbyterian church, learned doctrine of free willism, discovered that wasn't biblical, and never went back. I tried a Lutheran church after that which seemed "luke warm," and had a giant life-sized modernist wood carving of a man hanging on a cross that I found very offensive. I don't like graven images. I sat in that church for about a year and little memory of it other than that offensive modern artistic graven image of Jesus on the cross.

After that, I have stuck to very strict solo scriptura study and am at a real disadvantage discussing churches and denominations because I don't know any of them and don't have the inclination to study them or their histories. Although in the past I have looked at the Mormons and their claim to have new prophesies, angelic tablets, blah, blah. I investigated them a little bit at the time Mit Romney was running against President Obama to determine what kind of man a Mormon might be as a president. I voted for Romney, though he is rather despicable to me these days. How church denominations are organized, their doctrines, their theologies, I just couldn't care less about them nowadays.