• 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 being Jesus

Status
Not open for further replies.
robycop3

robycop3

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
HisWitness said:
im presenting plain scriptures here--why don't you tell us what they mean ???
Click to expand...

You're forgetting that David wrote, "the Lord said to my Lord...", a passage quoted by JESUS HIMSELF when He called David a prophet.

A N d . . .

From the KJV-

Hebrews 1:5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?
 
H

HisWitness

New Member
Yeshua1 said:
God the Son became an Angel in the Ot, temp basis, to speak to the Jewish peoples, but he later perm basis became Incarnated as a Human, as Jesus!
Click to expand...

so if God can become an angel in the old testament---Michael could have been the name of Christ in heaven all along

Doesn't mean that God was created at all.

Doesn't mean that Michael was created either.
 
D

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
HisWitness said:
so if God can become an angel in the old testament---Michael could have been the name of Christ in heaven all along

Doesn't mean that God was created at all.

Doesn't mean that Michael was created either.
Click to expand...
I note two things here:
First you base your theology on suppositions.
Michael could have...
My theology is based on: I know whom I have believed in..., not could have, nor could be, nor is possible.

Secondly, you answer questions with questions. That is not debate. It is a way of avoiding the questions that were asked of you, of which you have no answer. You cannot answer, for example, the last post I addressed to you.
 
D

DrJamesAch

New Member
DrJamesAch said:
Michael is referred to as an arch angel in Revelation and Jude because Revelation is dealing with corporate Israel again after the rapture of the church, and Michael is the arch angel over Israel.

You have butchered the Hebrew text of Daniel 10:13 by claiming that "echad" can "also mean first". If you do not read or understand Hebrew grammar and language, I suggest you not make such ignorant statements without knowing how and when any Hebrew word applies among its available declensions.

It would make no sense in Daniel 10:13 to say that Michael was the "FIRST of the CHIEF princes". That would be like interpreting Genesis 1:9:

"And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto FIRST [echad] place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so."

Did the waters under the heaven win a contest? How did they get "first place"?

You need to know the difference between when echad is used to describe union, quantity, and ordinal passages.

In Daniel 10:13, echad is used in the same manner in verses like Deut 6:4 "Here O Israel the LORD our God is one (echad) Lord".

Thus Daniel 10:13 which clearly shows that Michael was only ONE OF the chief princes, shows that there were other "arch" angels-since arch is a GREEK word, you can not take a GREEK word, and claim that the OT makes no mention of any other angel as "arch" angel. Arch has the same meaning in Greek, as the Hebrew word for "chief"-ri'shown, which also means "first".

Since ri'shown ("One of the CHIEF princes") is related to PLURAL PRINCES, this shows that there can be MORE THAN ONE "FIRSTS". Thus not only does this refute the idea that there is only one arch angel, but shows your interpretation to be absurd. The Hebrew text could not possible be translated "First of the First Princes". The logical interpretation consistent with 93% percent of the usage of echad is that Michael is ONE OF the CHIEF PRINCES, which proves he is a created being and not Jesus Christ.
Click to expand...

HW didn't address this one either.
 
H

HisWitness

New Member
DHK said:
I note two things here:
First you base your theology on suppositions.
Michael could have...
My theology is based on: I know whom I have believed in..., not could have, nor could be, nor is possible.

Secondly, you answer questions with questions. That is not debate. It is a way of avoiding the questions that were asked of you, of which you have no answer. You cannot answer, for example, the last post I addressed to you.
Click to expand...

God was called an angel in the OT
Michael is called the Archangel

the same applies for each one--simple as that :jesus::jesus:
 
S

Steadfast Fred

Active Member
Michael is called an archangel, yes.

Now, show us in the Bible where Jesus is called Michael? or where Michael is called Jesus?

1 Thessalonians 4:16 doesn't say it. Matter of fact, research will reveal that when kings made their appearance, there was always a herald that proclaimed the appearance of the king (hence, the voice of an archangel). The king never made the proclamation himself... someone else did.
 
D

DHK

<b>Moderator</b>
HisWitness said:
God was called an angel in the OT
Michael is called the Archangel

the same applies for each one--simple as that :jesus::jesus:
Click to expand...

Lucifer was called an angel in the OT.
Lucifer is also called a god.
Therefore Jesus is Lucifer.
This is the same reasoning that you are using.

BTW, Lucifer was above all the angels in heaven and was able to sway one third of them to follow him in his rebellion. If Michael had as much power as you attribute to him, why wasn't he able to stop Lucifer from such a wide-spread rebellion in heaven?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top