Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Still does not prove that Christ was the archangel Michael or that He was ever and angel as you would have Him be.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Michael, the Chief Messenger = Jesus Christ?
- Thread starter asterisktom
- Start date
Still does not prove that Christ was the archangel Michael or that He was ever and angel as you would have Him be.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Still does not prove that He was the archangel Michael.
Why do you struggle so hard to bring Christ, the un-created one, down from being God to being just an angel, a created one?
Ascetic X
Active Member
It’s weird and rather sad how he’s not discussing the topic, but is merely quoting verses that have nothing to do with it. This is how he behaves.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
OK but that still does not make Christ the archangel Michael or vice versa.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
He has no argument so resorts to what amounts to throw mud at the wall and hope some sticks.
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
The words of the messenger belong to the sender.
This lacks definite proof.
37818
Well-Known Member
Huh. It is you who assumes arguments not being made.
37818
Well-Known Member
Assuming an argument not being made.
37818
Well-Known Member
Is this a blatant denial of Genesis 22:11-12?
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
No, I don’t deny that Genesis 22:11-12 is in the Bible or even that it is in error.
Any messenger is to be taken as seriously as the person from whom he is sent.
According to Christ, messengers and servants were sent and afterwards the Son.
I don’t think that you present enough evidence (especially without explanation) to show definitively that the Lord is His own Messenger.
I see an angel of the Lord, yet not the Angel of the Lord.
I don’t deny that it is possible. But it is not evident to me that any “angel of the Lord” is without question, Jesus.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
@37818 I have shown you why your view fails but all we get from you is, well nothing.
You have not dealt with the two relevant passages.
You did not even try to respond to what I had written.
Putting your head in the sand does not make the problem go away.
You are still saying that Christ was just a created angel when you say Michael the archangel is Christ.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
37818
Well-Known Member
@Ascetic X, Has proposed the best argument against the notion the Archangel Michael being a preincarnation of Christ in this thread!
A mear denial is not a good argument.
37818
Well-Known Member
You don't understand my point of view.
@Ascetic X, has put forth the best argument.
Using Revelation 12:7-10.
37818
Well-Known Member
How do you understand John 1:18 regarding the preincarnate Christ?
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
Exactly as it says.
No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.
No mention of Michael. Just Jesus, the Son.
That is clearly not the answer you are expecting. I don’t know what you are getting at.
(EDIT
I hadn’t gotten as far as your next post. )
Explain this one for me please.
Hebrews 2:16
For verily he took not on him the nature of angels; but he took on him the seed of Abraham.
Ben1445
Well-Known Member
That would be Jesus and not Michael.
Silverhair
Well-Known Member
Your point of view seem to be that Christ is Michael the archangel. That view is not supported by the text.
Since you say I do not understand your view then lay it out in clear text with supporting scripture.
Without that it just becomes your opinion.
37818
Well-Known Member
Brother,
My use of capital A in angel is merely my acknowledging the deity of the angel of the LORD. If it was Lord, I would not have capitalized angel.
If I simply quoted the Biblical text, I would have left it as it was.