not keeping up, but good discussion all
You are in the same mind frame as Judas was when Satan was able to enter into him and use him to come against God and His Purpose.
The New World Translation is the Jehovah Witnesses Bible.
Ok, that is a common ground, or common place, then, to start with. The places that the Son, as you and I believe, is identified as "The Angel of the LORD". (Angel meaning Messenger, not Created, or coming into existence in eternity past, but simply in office/position of messenger for the Father).Just BTW -
Absolutely agree "The Angel of the LORD" = Christ ((as in Judges 13, Exodus 3 etc etc)) but not convinced this is the same person as Michael. To me there are key attributes of all those accounts not present in the brief mentions of Michael in scripture, such as His name being hidden and Him being directly called "God"
I admit that this view makes Hebrews 1 more difficult to navigate, but IMO the way the OT so clearly equates the appearance of this particular 'Messenger' with God, and dileneates Him with the 'Ha' make the difference.
.
To my knowledge; Christian Chat's terms of service don't prohibit heresy;
which is a good thing because heresy is typically subjective rather than
objective. In other words: whose thoughts would they cancel; your thoughts
or those of the folks who disagree with you? And what about management's
thoughts? Let's not be encouraging Big Brother oversight.
Terms Of Service
_
Ok, that is a common ground, or common place, then, to start with. The places that the Son, as you and I believe, is identified as "The Angel of the LORD". (Angel meaning Messenger, not Created, or coming into existence in eternity past, but simply in office/position of messenger for the Father).
Would you agree that this place (Genesis 32:24-30) also refers to the Son?
Gen 32:24 And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day.
Gen 32:25 And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was out of joint, as he wrestled with him.
Gen 32:26 And he said, Let me go, for the day breaketh. And he said, I will not let thee go, except thou bless me.
Gen 32:27 And he said unto him, What is thy name? And he said, Jacob.
Gen 32:28 And he said, Thy name shall be called no more Jacob, but Israel: for as a prince hast thou power with God and with men, and hast prevailed.
Gen 32:29 And Jacob asked him, and said, Tell me, I pray thee, thy name. And he said, Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name? And he blessed him there.
Gen 32:30 And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved.
Would you agree that this place (Judges 13:10-22) also refers to the Son (as it seems this is to what you referred to when you said, "as in Judges 13")):
Jdg 13:10 And the woman made haste, and ran, and shewed her husband, and said unto him, Behold, the man hath appeared unto me, that came unto me the other day.
Jdg 13:11 And Manoah arose, and went after his wife, and came to the man, and said unto him, Art thou the man that spakest unto the woman? And he said, I am.
Jdg 13:12 And Manoah said, Now let thy words come to pass. How shall we order the child, and how shall we do unto him?
Jdg 13:13 And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah, Of all that I said unto the woman let her beware.
Jdg 13:14 She may not eat of any thing that cometh of the vine, neither let her drink wine or strong drink, nor eat any unclean thing: all that I commanded her let her observe.
Jdg 13:15 And Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD, I pray thee, let us detain thee, until we shall have made ready a kid for thee.
Jdg 13:16 And the angel of the LORD said unto Manoah, Though thou detain me, I will not eat of thy bread: and if thou wilt offer a burnt offering, thou must offer it unto the LORD. For Manoah knew not that he was an angel of the LORD.
Jdg 13:17 And Manoah said unto the angel of the LORD, What is thy name, that when thy sayings come to pass we may do thee honour?
Jdg 13:18 And the angel of the LORD said unto him, Why askest thou thus after my name, seeing it is secret?
Jdg 13:19 So Manoah took a kid with a meat offering, and offered it upon a rock unto the LORD: and the angel did wondrously; and Manoah and his wife looked on.
Jdg 13:20 For it came to pass, when the flame went up toward heaven from off the altar, that the angel of the LORD ascended in the flame of the altar. And Manoah and his wife looked on it, and fell on their faces to the ground.
Jdg 13:21 But the angel of the LORD did no more appear to Manoah and to his wife. Then Manoah knew that he was an angel of the LORD.
Jdg 13:22 And Manoah said unto his wife, We shall surely die, because we have seen God.
No, the Bible makes a distinction between the Uncreated Angel (Messnger) of the LORD (Father) and the created angels (like Gabriel, and the angelic hosts). That is the purpose of Hebrews 1. Yet, the created messengers (heavenly or earrthly) are the "fellows" of the uncreated Messenger (Son).God SPECIFICALLY makes an unequivocal difference between His Son, and angels. Michael, is UNEQUIVOCALLY an angel.
You are severely twisting the Word of God to try and fit your heresy.
God knowing this type of heresy would present itself inspired Hebrews 1 to make sure those preaching a different Gospel, that His Son is an angelic being, is countered.
We all know what the word "angel" means. And in some instances in Scriptures it does mean just "messenger".
But angels are also a created "race" with different ranks, abilities, and offices. There is NO way to twist Hebrews 1 to mean anything but Jesus is DIFFERENT and ABOVE created angels. Which Michael is.
No worries.Yes and yes; Judges 13 is one I mentioned myself. And Joshua, which is going to be your strongest case.
The legalism of SDA will not save you. the majority here as you say hold to the word of God And Jesus as the only way who is God as the word of God tell us.
Seventh-day Adventists (as a link in the chain of the Reformation on back into sacred history) believe that Michael the Archangel is another designation for the Son of God (aka, "Jesus"), who is uncreated and eternally existing, from everlasting to everlasting, Deity.I didn't realize the SDA believed Michael were Jesus. I kept thinking they were being confused with the LDS but, now I'm confused. Do both groups believe this? or did I get mixed up about who believes what?
Seventh-day Adventists (as a link in the chain of the Reformation on back into sacred history) believe that Michael the Archangel is another designation for the Son of God (aka, "Jesus"), who is uncreated and eternally existing, from everlasting to everlasting, Deity.
The WTS/JW believe that Michael the Archangel is another designation for the Son of God, but take the approach that he is a created being, or the highest of all creation. This reason for this, is because the WTS/JW doctrine came from the Reformers, and into the early Great Awakening, Millerite, Advent movements (mid-1800's), but chose to go part way back to Romanism in it (by making Michael a created being as does Roman Catholicism, but identifying him as the Son (aka "Jesus) as the Reformation did).
The LDS (aka "Mormon"), teach that Michael the Archangel is another name for Adam the first, in "pre-mortal life"
Ok, sure. No worries, be glad to help in any way possible. If you have any questions for me, ask here or in PM.Thank you for obliging my inquiry! I will have to go back and read through the post to see if I can find any context addressing why it might be believed that Michael is not created which, if found to be valid, would then equate Him to Jesus.
Ok, sure. No worries, be glad to help in any way possible. If you have any questions for me, ask here or in PM.
You need to read Enoch. There's a reason why Enoch is quoted so many times in the New Testament because the Jews held to his sayings like a Gospel.No, the Bible makes a distinction between the Uncreated Angel (Messnger) of the LORD (Father) and the created angels (like Gabriel, and the angelic hosts). That is the purpose of Hebrews 1. Yet, the created messengers (heavenly or earrthly) are the "fellows" of the uncreated Messenger (Son).
I have not twisted anything, but simply provided the texts (like Malachi 3:1) that show that the Son has the office of "Angel" (Messenger). It is not derogatory, nor blasphemous to repeat this from scripture. It is not heresy, but accepted by all of Christianity from the earliest post-apostolic (12 Apostles) times. I provided those citations also. Would you like for me to post them individually here for you to see?
Hebrews 1 is not against the OP, nor myself, but in full agreement, for as the Son is the "Angel (Messenger) of the LORD (Father)" does not make Him a created being, so too that the Son is the "Apostle" (one Sent) of the Father, does not make Him a created being. To speak for and to be sent by someone else, is simply stating something about an office, place or position, not a nature.
You do not accept what the word "angel" means. I provided the scriptural defintion, and the definition held by all of Christianity in the past. Your present and private definition excludes "office", "position", and substitutes in their place "nature".
Gabriel is indeed an "angel", but this says nothing about his nature, but rather his office, or position as given by God. It means he is a messenger. Other context dictates whether or not he is a created being, such as when persons attempt bowing down to him, he refuses, and says to worship God alone. That indicates this "angel" (messenger) is a created being.
Yet, when we see such words associated with the Son, like "Angel of the LORD", etc, the context simply refers to His coming on behalf of the Father's will, to say what the Father gave Him to say. It does not indicate Him to be a created being. It simply means He is a messenger for another. The context surrounding those passages, reveal that the Son accepts worship due to Deity. This means He is an uncreated being, but still a messenger. The two things are not exclusive, but reveal differing things about the person involved.
For instance, I can say that I am both a person of mankind (nature), and an 'angel' (a position of office, place or responsibility, a messenger for another, as John the Baptist, Malachi 3:1).
A person can be a human (nature) and a garbage (sanitation)-person (position, office, responsibility, job, function).
The word 'mal'ak' (Hebrew), or 'aggelos" (koine Greek) only means "messenger" (period). Neither word has anything to do with an inherent nature. it refers to position, office, job, function, not nature.
No, it isn't. That's a myth perpetuated by those who have not done an actual collation between the several texts. The NT quotes the OT, as does 1,2,3 pseudopigraphical 'Enoch'.There's a reason why Enoch is quoted so many times in the New Testament