Michael being Jesus

[DrJamesAch]

BeamMeUp Post 217

True that JWs believe this, but so do 7th Day Adventists. HW claims that he believes Jesus is God which is something that a JW does not believe, but 7DA's still do. HW does not believe in a literal hell, also a 7DA/JW doctrine. HW claims to be a Preterist, but his eschatology and interpretation of Revelation is more in line with the Historicist position, also 7DA doctrine. He uses Spurgeon to prove that Baptists also believe that Michael is Jesus-also a 7DA argument.

However, some of his other views like that of Satan are almost exclusive to Christadelphians which share some of his other views as well.

So HW is a confused mix between 7DA and Christadelphians

 

[Gorship]

BeamMeUp Post 217

True that JWs believe this, but so do 7th Day Adventists. HW claims that he believes Jesus is God which is something that a JW does not believe, but 7DA's still do. HW does not believe in a literal hell, also a 7DA/JW doctrine. HW claims to be a Preterist, but his eschatology and interpretation of Revelation is more in line with the Historicist position, also 7DA doctrine. He uses Spurgeon to prove that Baptists also believe that Michael is Jesus-also a 7DA argument.

However, some of his other views like that of Satan are almost exclusive to Christadelphians which share some of his other views as well.

So HW is a confused mix between 7DA and Christadelphians

found it interesting that the 7DA have their own Bible too (not a big surprise though).

oh... its vile by the way.

 

[Steadfast Fred]

found it interesting that the 7DA have their own Bible too (not a big surprise though).

oh... its vile by the way.

Their Bible does contradict God's Word.


Matt. 25:46, TCW: "I have no choice but to end your lives, because in my kingdom everyone cares about everyone else.'"


Matt. 25:46, KJV "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."

The SDA teaches no torment after death . Boy, are they in for a big let-down. I wouldn't want to be in their shoes when they find out they followed the wrong Jesus.

 

[saturneptune]

BeamMeUp Post 217

True that JWs believe this, but so do 7th Day Adventists. HW claims that he believes Jesus is God which is something that a JW does not believe, but 7DA's still do. HW does not believe in a literal hell, also a 7DA/JW doctrine. HW claims to be a Preterist, but his eschatology and interpretation of Revelation is more in line with the Historicist position, also 7DA doctrine. He uses Spurgeon to prove that Baptists also believe that Michael is Jesus-also a 7DA argument.

However, some of his other views like that of Satan are almost exclusive to Christadelphians which share some of his other views as well.

So HW is a confused mix between 7DA and Christadelphians

Christadelphian implies Unitarian, which implies the Father and Son are not One in the Trinity. They also have strange views on the nature of Jesus Christ. The group, started by John Thomas, was founded in the same era as the Mormons and JWs. Having said that, HW never said he does not believe in the Trinity.

We all know what SDAs believe due to the threads in the other denomination section. One of their beliefs is annihilation, not an absence of hell. Christadelphians do not believe in the existence of hell.

I disagree with many of HWs beliefs, such as the belief about Michael and Jesus. However, you are pinning him with beliefs, such as a disbelief in the Trinity, that he does not have. The Moderators would have noticed that by now.

If you are going to pin labels on individuals, read what they have said, and at least understand the definition of the labels you are using.

 

[DrJamesAch]

Christadelphian implies Unitarian, which implies the Father and Son are not One in the Trinity. They also have strange views on the nature of Jesus Christ. The group, started by John Thomas, was founded in the same era as the Mormons and JWs. Having said that, HW never said he does not believe in the Trinity.

We all know what SDAs believe due to the threads in the other denomination section. One of their beliefs is annihilation, not an absence of hell. Christadelphians do not believe in the existence of hell.

I disagree with many of HWs beliefs, such as the belief about Michael and Jesus. However, you are pinning him with beliefs, such as a disbelief in the Trinity, that he does not have. The Moderators would have noticed that by now.

If you are going to pin labels on individuals, read what they have said, and at least understand the definition of the labels you are using.

If you are going to critique what I said, then read what I said:

"True that JWs believe this, but so do 7th Day Adventists. HW claims that he believes Jesus is God which is something that a JW does not believe, but 7DA's still do. HW does not believe in a literal hell, also a 7DA/JW doctrine. HW claims to be a Preterist, but his eschatology and interpretation of Revelation is more in line with the Historicist position, also 7DA doctrine. He uses Spurgeon to prove that Baptists also believe that Michael is Jesus-also a 7DA argument.

However, some of his other views like that of Satan are almost exclusive to Christadelphians which share some of his other views as well.

So HW is a confused mix between 7DA and Christadelphians"

I said that he holds a mixture of the 2 beliefs, but clearly stated what he has claimed about Christ being God which I highlighted in the short paragraph that you must have skipped right over. So obviously, I did not accuse of specifically of denying the Trinity per se. I can not say that he completely agrees with the Trinity because you can not say that a created angel is also Jesus, and claim to believe the Trinity at the same time. The Trinity is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; NOT God the Father, God the Son/Michael the Archangel, God the Holy Spirit. It is as equally heretical as denying the Trinity outright.

But yes, his beliefs are consistent with 7DA, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christadelphians regardless of whether they are EXACTLY the same or not. There are more than just a few coincidences between all of those belief systems, and if you've studied 7DA and JW's, you would know that Charles Russell derived many of his beliefs from studying Ellen G. White and 7DA material. What HW has posted in many threads certainly is not common among ANY Baptist groups, Calvinist or Non Calvinist, IFB, SBC, ABC, GARB, Primitive, Hardshell, Landmark, et al. (With the exception of perhaps his serpent/seed views held by Primitive Baptists like Daniel Parker).

Michael being Jesus is not the only tenet of these groups that he has in common with them. He has written several threads about there being no literal hell, that Satan is not a real person, but a title and a concept that tempts men at various times in history which is consistent with Christadelphians.

I didn't just pull titles out of thin air. It is based on several beliefs that I have seen him posit on here. But the main issue that you attempted to critique me on, you skipped right over the part where I quoted what he said he believed about Christ which I said the JW's do not believe. Get some Tylenol for that :tonofbricks::BangHead:

 

[RLBosley]

I started reading this and then realized it's an absurd 23 pages long... my only comment is why is anyone bothering to argue with HW?? And how has he not been banned?

 

[HisWitness]

Christadelphian implies Unitarian, which implies the Father and Son are not One in the Trinity. They also have strange views on the nature of Jesus Christ. The group, started by John Thomas, was founded in the same era as the Mormons and JWs. Having said that, HW never said he does not believe in the Trinity.

We all know what SDAs believe due to the threads in the other denomination section. One of their beliefs is annihilation, not an absence of hell. Christadelphians do not believe in the existence of hell.

I disagree with many of HWs beliefs, such as the belief about Michael and Jesus. However, you are pinning him with beliefs, such as a disbelief in the Trinity, that he does not have. The Moderators would have noticed that by now.

If you are going to pin labels on individuals, read what they have said, and at least understand the definition of the labels you are using.

you are very kind brother :godisgood::godisgood::godisgood:

 

[HisWitness]

Still GOD was an ANGEL of the LORD in the OT.

are you gonna say he was created being because he was an angel ???? NO

So how is it you keep refuting the possibility that Michael--even though called an archangel could also be Jesus and NOT a created being.

Your theory on this topic does not make sense what so ever >

 

[HisWitness]

If you are going to critique what I said, then read what I said:

"True that JWs believe this, but so do 7th Day Adventists. HW claims that he believes Jesus is God which is something that a JW does not believe, but 7DA's still do. HW does not believe in a literal hell, also a 7DA/JW doctrine. HW claims to be a Preterist, but his eschatology and interpretation of Revelation is more in line with the Historicist position, also 7DA doctrine. He uses Spurgeon to prove that Baptists also believe that Michael is Jesus-also a 7DA argument.

However, some of his other views like that of Satan are almost exclusive to Christadelphians which share some of his other views as well.

So HW is a confused mix between 7DA and Christadelphians"

I said that he holds a mixture of the 2 beliefs, but clearly stated what he has claimed about Christ being God which I highlighted in the short paragraph that you must have skipped right over. So obviously, I did not accuse of specifically of denying the Trinity per se. I can not say that he completely agrees with the Trinity because you can not say that a created angel is also Jesus, and claim to believe the Trinity at the same time. The Trinity is God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit; NOT God the Father, God the Son/Michael the Archangel, God the Holy Spirit. It is as equally heretical as denying the Trinity outright.

But yes, his beliefs are consistent with 7DA, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Christadelphians regardless of whether they are EXACTLY the same or not. There are more than just a few coincidences between all of those belief systems, and if you've studied 7DA and JW's, you would know that Charles Russell derived many of his beliefs from studying Ellen G. White and 7DA material. What HW has posted in many threads certainly is not common among ANY Baptist groups, Calvinist or Non Calvinist, IFB, SBC, ABC, GARB, Primitive, Hardshell, Landmark, et al. (With the exception of perhaps his serpent/seed views held by Primitive Baptists like Daniel Parker).

Michael being Jesus is not the only tenet of these groups that he has in common with them. He has written several threads about there being no literal hell, that Satan is not a real person, but a title and a concept that tempts men at various times in history which is consistent with Christadelphians.

I didn't just pull titles out of thin air. It is based on several beliefs that I have seen him posit on here. But the main issue that you attempted to critique me on, you skipped right over the part where I quoted what he said he believed about Christ which I said the JW's do not believe. Get some Tylenol for that :tonofbricks::BangHead:

brother there is truth in some of the other denominations--or whatever you wanna call them--I did NOT say that other denominations had 100 % truth--just like Baptists have their own man made traditions also--your problem is that you think Baptists(which I am a Baptist)have 100% truth and they do not--your theory is that if your gonna believe one or more points of a belief outside Baptists--that you must fully hold to all of their teachings---that is NOT true what so ever--I Hold to truth where ever or what ever denomination it comes from or what ever it makes me be called by man.

-----------:love2:--------------:love2:

 

[DHK]

Still GOD was an ANGEL of the LORD in the OT.

are you gonna say he was created being because he was an angel ???? NO

So how is it you keep refuting the possibility that Michael--even though called an archangel could also be Jesus and NOT a created being.

Your theory on this topic does not make sense what so ever >

God was never an angel!
That is blasphemy.

This is where you misunderstand the terminology used in the Bible.
As I previously mentioned in a post to you, the term "angel of the Lord" used in the OT, sometimes is used indicating a Christophany, that is, an appearance of Christ. That does not mean that Christ is an angel any more than it means that God has wings, when he says:

"I will shelter you under my wing."
"I will uphold you with the right hand of my righteousness."
--He has no hand. He is Spirit.

Moses spoke to him face to face.
Exodus 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

John 4:24. God is spirit; they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
--God has no face. These are anthrompormorphisms.

He is not an angel. It is only a term, another description of what God might be like, a term to help man describe what God might be like if he could see him. But God is not an angel. However this is not a description of God himself, it is Christ in the flesh; "the angel of the Lord," not Michael but Christ himself.

 

[HisWitness]

God was never an angel!
That is blasphemy.

This is where you misunderstand the terminology used in the Bible.
As I previously mentioned in a post to you, the term "angel of the Lord" used in the OT, sometimes is used indicating a Christophany, that is, an appearance of Christ. That does not mean that Christ is an angel any more than it means that God has wings, when he says:

"I will shelter you under my wing."
"I will uphold you with the right hand of my righteousness."
--He has no hand. He is Spirit.

Moses spoke to him face to face.
Exodus 33:11 And the LORD spake unto Moses face to face, as a man speaketh unto his friend. And he turned again into the camp: but his servant Joshua, the son of Nun, a young man, departed not out of the tabernacle.

John 4:24. God is spirit; they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
--God has no face. These are anthrompormorphisms.

He is not an angel. It is only a term, another description of what God might be like, a term to help man describe what God might be like if he could see him. But God is not an angel. However this is not a description of God himself, it is Christ in the flesh; "the angel of the Lord," not Michael but Christ himself.

its useless talking to you friend--you keep adding words that im not saying.

I NEVER said Christ or God was an actual angel--I said the scripture called God an angel

Beside Michael has a title that no other angel in the bible has---Archangel---he was the only one with that title-----youll say there were more---but its not in our bibles of another angel being called archangel---ill take what the scriptures says over your speculating that they had to be more.

which means Chief of and over all angels

If Michael was jesus(Christ) then he could have like wise been called an angel and not be, so as God himself was labeled that way.

in the sense of being a messenger--God/Christ could have been called angel in that sense--for they were the First-Foremost-Greatest-- of all messengers.

 

[DHK]

in the sense of being a messenger--God/Christ could have been called angel in that sense--for they were the First-Foremost-Greatest-- of all messengers.

This is blasphemy.
"Let ALL the angels worship Him (Christ)." Hebrews 1.
The ALL includes Michael.
Michael does not worship himself.
Furthermore God is not a messenger of himself! What nonsense is that!
God is God. Christ is God. You seem to be denying the deity of Christ.

 

[DHK]

Here is some food for thought from Albert Barnes:

The word is not found in the Septuagint; and the only archangel, therefore, which is named in the Scriptures, is Michael, Jude 1:9 Comp. Re 12:7. Seven angels, however, are referred to in the Scriptures as having an eminence above others, and these are commonly regarded as archangels, Re 8:2. "And I saw the seven angels which stood before God." One of these is supposed to be referred to in the Book of Tobit, xii. 15, "I am Raphael, one of the seven holy angels, which present the prayers of the saints, and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One." The names of three only of the seven are mentioned in the Jewish writings: Michael, the patron of the Jewish nation, Da 10:13; 12:1. Gabriel, Da 8:16; 9:21 comp. Lu 1:19,26. Raphael, Tobit iii. 17; v. 4; viii. 2; ix. 1, 5; xii. 15. The Book of Enoch adds that of Uriel, pp. 187, 190, 191, 193. Michael is mentioned as one "of the chief princes," Da 10:13; and as "the great prince," Da 12:1. Comp. Cmt. on Eph 1:21, and see an article by Prof. Stuart in the Bibliotheca Sacra, No. x on Angelology. It seems evident from the Scriptures, that there is one or more among the angels to whom the name archangel properly belongs. This view is in accordance with the doctrine in the Scriptures that the heavenly beings are divided into ranks and orders, for if so, it is not unreasonable to suppose that there should be one or more to whom the most exalted rank appertains. Comp. Re 12:7. Whether there is more than one to whom this name appropriately belongs, it is impossible now to determine, and is not material. The word here (in Greek) is without the article, and the phrase might be rendered, "with the voice of an archangel."

 

[HisWitness]

This is blasphemy.
"Let ALL the angels worship Him (Christ)." Hebrews 1.
The ALL includes Michael.
Michael does not worship himself.
Furthermore God is not a messenger of himself! What nonsense is that!
God is God. Christ is God. You seem to be denying the deity of Christ.

was not Christ in the flesh a messenger(angel) ?

was not men labeled angels(messengers)

Men are NOT angels and Christ is NOT angel

But the sense of being a messenger is applied to each(angel)

 

[HisWitness]

This is blasphemy.
"Let ALL the angels worship Him (Christ)." Hebrews 1.
The ALL includes Michael.
Michael does not worship himself.
Furthermore God is not a messenger of himself! What nonsense is that!
God is God. Christ is God. You seem to be denying the deity of Christ.

God was the ANGEL of the Lord in OT---does God worship himself ???

 

[DrJamesAch]

its useless talking to you friend--you keep adding words that im not saying.

I NEVER said Christ or God was an actual angel--I said the scripture called God an angel

Beside Michael has a title that no other angel in the bible has---Archangel---he was the only one with that title-----youll say there were more---but its not in our bibles of another angel being called archangel---ill take what the scriptures says over your speculating that they had to be more.

which means Chief of and over all angels

If Michael was jesus(Christ) then he could have like wise been called an angel and not be, so as God himself was labeled that way.

in the sense of being a messenger--God/Christ could have been called angel in that sense--for they were the First-Foremost-Greatest-- of all messengers.

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.

 

[DHK]

was not Christ in the flesh a messenger(angel) ?

was not men labeled angels(messengers)

Men are NOT angels and Christ is NOT angel

But the sense of being a messenger is applied to each(angel)

The Greek word aggelos simply means "messenger."

Jesus wrote seven letters to the seven messengers of the seven churches in Revelation two and three. These were not actual angels, but the pastors of the churches mentioned in those two chapter.
Your conclusion: Every pastor is an angel??
Every missionary is an messenger--sent with the message of God to others (an angel??)
For that fact every Christian ought to be a missionary (an angel) sent out with God's message. Are we all angels then?

Perhaps you believe in Benny Hinn's theology who said on TBN: "We are all little gods running around on this earth."
Are we all a little god, because we are messengers/gods on this earth?
Is Hinn right?

Hinn believes in a similar fashion to Humanism which states: "All mankind has a spark of divinity within them."
Is that your belief?

Here is a syllogism which fits your thinking:

Lucifer is spirit.
God is spirit.
Since Lucifer is spirit and God is spirit, then God is Lucifer.

Michael is the chief of angels.
Christ is over the angels.
Therefore since both are over angels, Christ is Michael.

Christ is Michael and God is Lucifer. You have used the same logic.
It is naive semantic game of words in which you have lost.
The theology of the Bible, much less logic itself, contradicts which you say.

Christ is Creator of all things, All the angels worship him, including Michael. All means all. How do you get around that?

 

[Gorship]

HW. Do you not think it to be poor Eisegesis to say that since Jesus was bringing a message - he was therefore he was an angel.

Using a word as a title, and using a name to describe an action are two different things.

my name is Jordan
I hate to inform you, i am not a river in israel.

 

[Fred's Wife]

HW. Do you not think it to be poor Eisegesis to say that since Jesus was bringing a message - he was therefore he was an angel.

Using a word as a title, and using a name to describe an action are two different things.

my name is Jordan
I hate to inform you, i am not a river in israel.

:godisgood::jesus::thumbs::thumbs:

 

[HisWitness]

HW. Do you not think it to be poor Eisegesis to say that since Jesus was bringing a message - he was therefore he was an angel.

Using a word as a title, and using a name to describe an action are two different things.

my name is Jordan
I hate to inform you, i am not a river in israel.

God was the Angel of the Lord in the OT.