Featured Michael the archangel - The Character That Will Stand [KJB]

I have attempted, brother, to ascertain from you, the specific reasons and/or most pertinent evidences, for why you continue to hold to your belief.

Will you cite at least your primary reasons, evidencing from scripture, or if (I do not say you do) you have other foundations, or sources, then feel free to cite those as well (for instance, I know some that like to cite the so-called 1st Enoch, etc and other such mystic and apocryphal writings that contradict scripture [KJB], even Jesus.)

I am not here to wrest anyone's belief from them (God forbid!), but simply to present the full documentation on the subject, that all may have access to the relevant information, and all who look are free to do what they will with it (even as they do with Jesus). Let all choose prayerfully, wisely, humbly, truthfully, for we are all responsible for what we believe, teach, think and practice.

I would again say that the bible [KJB] says, Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. - John 17:17 KJB

Error cannot ever sanctify, and acts as a magnet, or pit enlarging itself, drawing in other errors unto itself, and swallowing greater and greater.

The physical manifestation in the world of these spiritual things may be seen in Isaiah 5:8-14 KJB. Whole sections of cities, are even now being swallowed up physically, all the outworking of the inward spiritual corruptions. All that is in the heart of man cannot be hid, but will manifest itself, for out of the heart are the issues of life, and out of the heart, the mouth speaks.

You are loved.

 

Brother, I gave tremendous amounts of evidence from scripture [KJB], showing that Michael the archangel [Who is like unto God (the Father), the Highest Messenger (of the Father)] is the Son [Jesus] of the Father, sent from His very bosom of Love to usward.

What texts of scripture would you kindly cite, showing contrarywise, or are you simply asserting the apriori position that scripture does not anywhere state that the Son [Jesus] of the Father is Michael, and likewise nowhere states that He is not?

I have never used the word "mere" in regards Michael the archangel [Jesus] in the present study, nor in this thread, as there is nothing "mere" about Him. Jesus is called "Apostle" [Hebrews 3:1 KJB], but I would likewise never say that He was a 'mere' "Apostle".

Perhaps you may help me understand what you mean when you say the word "archangel".

What do you believe (please evidence) this word (archangel) to mean in definition, in its whole ('archangel') and component parts ('arch' & 'angel')?

I believe this may help our conversation together, and futher this thread in being useful to those who are reading, and will yet read it.

Presently you also seem to already agree with myself (in agreement with scripture [KJB]) that the Son of the Father has many names/titles/designations in the OT and NT. Thus it cannot be a reason to reject the name of "Michael" from belonging to the Son of the Father, and so I would also ask you, if you would explain why it would not be possible (evidenced).

I await to consider your answers to those questions. Thank you for your time and responses.

 

Thank you for your time brother. The Roman Catholic theological position you have stated and hold to. Therefore, I will move on to others responses that I may have missed in this thread. If you would like to continue our coversation, my previous questions to you are still available to be addressed. I will make a suggestion to you however. Please take this material, and my responses to yourself, and others, and share all of it with the members whom you locally worship, study and pray with, and let me know what they think, respond etc, and show them how they may reach me.

 

The Michael the Archangel - Jesus Superfile is now re-uploaded [time limit had expired], in case anyone desires to test or peruse it - http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=10930346204581685709