ARCHIVE: Is this really demonic doctrine or what...

[Freak]

Me Again once stated (in fact during our formal debate) that Jesus existed under the person of an angel. In his own words: I also believe that Michael the Archangel was actually the Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-human birth form. He came here with the authority of the Father

Jesus is Jesus. He is not an angel. Angels are created beings. Jesus is Deity. Basic theology. But to Me Again "Biblical Theology 101" is puzzling and very confusing.

I'm very curious Detective. What do you believe of Jesus? Is He God? Or do you still believe what you said a few months ago: I also believe that Michael the Archangel was actually the Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-human birth form. He came here with the authority of the Father

No reason to be confusing with your answer just a simple:

Yes, I believe Jesus is God and not an angel.

or-

No, I do not believe Jesus is God and I also believe that Michael the Archangel was actually the Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-human birth form. He came here with the authority of the Father

 

[Axacta]

That Jesus was the archangel Michael is so easily disproved:

-God has complete authority over Satan JOB_1:6-2:7

-Archangel Michael has no authority over Satan JUDE_9

-Jesus, the Son of Man is less than Angels HEB_2:7-9

-Jesus, the Son of God has authority over Satan MT_4:10, MK_8:33, LK_22:31

 

[Dee Dee Warren]

I do not believe that Jesus was Michael, but... that idea by itself, has historically been accepted within the pale of orthodoxy as long as the Trinity was not denied. To single this idea out as some demonic doctrine is just not fair or accurate, at least in light of the history of the faith. Again, I repeat, I do not agree with the idea, but I know many orthodox people who do.

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by Dee Dee Warren
I do not believe that Jesus was Michael, but... that idea by itself, has historically been accepted within the pale of orthodoxy as long as the Trinity was not denied. To single this idea out as some demonic doctrine is just not fair or accurate, at least in light of the history of the faith. Again, I repeat, I do not agree with the idea, but I know many orthodox people who do.

DD, you said confidently, as one who has evidence: I do not believe that Jesus was Michael, but... that idea by itself, has historically been accepted within the pale of orthodoxy as long as the Trinity was not denied.

Within the pale of orthodoxy, huh? Can you prove that it is the case? Or is this simply your opinion on this matter?

No, it is not orthodox to consider that Jesus was an angel. That is absurd. Jesus, is the unique God-man not an angel.

 

[me again]

If there is any doubt that Barlett isn't back, that doubt is now gone. Hurray!!! :up:

Jay, you asked the same question in another thread and when I took the time to answer you, you never responded to my questions. Here, I'll repost it for you because I like you:

Posted by me again
Jay, I believe that the Lord Jesus Christ had a pre-incarnate form and that He existed prior to His physical birth. This leads me to some pointed questions for you. In your opinion:

• Did the Lord Jesus Christ exist prior to His physical birth?
  
  -- and --
  
• If the Lord Jesus Christ did exist prior to His physical birth, then by what name did He go by? (This one I've got to hear).
  
  -- or --
  
• Do you believe that prior to His physical birth:
  1. He was a no-name entity or
  2. He was non-existent.

Pray tell?

I know you won't bother to answer, but I still like you. :up:

 

[Freak]

Originally posted by me again
If there is any doubt that Barlett isn't back, that doubt is now gone. Hurray!!! :up:

Jay, you asked the same question in another thread and when I took the time to answer you, you never responded to my questions. Here, I'll repost it for you because I like you:I know you won't bother to answer, but I still like you. :up:

FYI-my last name is spelled Bartlett.

Please answer my simple question. Are you embarassed to answer it lest you be exposed as another heretic on TOL?

 

[me again]

Freak is back in full force & zeal

Freak is back in full force & zeal

Flames Fanned by Freak
No reason to be confusing with your answer. Just a simple:

• Yes, I believe Jesus is God and not an angel.

May I get clarification on the question?

Thank you, I knew you'd see it my way.

Requested Clarification:

• When you ask me to declare that Jesus is God, are you referring to Him as:
  
• God the Father
  
  -- or --
  
• God the Son

Pray tell?

 

[me again]

Posted by Freak
Please answer my simple question. Are you embarassed to answer it lest you be exposed as another heretic on TOL?

I'm shocked that you'd dare to lump me in the same heretical category as sheepdog and Axacta. :shocked:

Wait until they hear about this.

 

[Axacta]

Me again said:

>>>"If a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Moslem or [insert the person’s name here] goes to heaven, it is through Jesus."<<<

Because Buddhists, Hindus and Moslems do not accept Jesus as Savior, Me again obviously believes it is not necessary to believe in Christ as Savior to be saved - this is heresy!

 

[AVmetro]

I don't believe Jesus was Michael. Heb1 pretty much refutes that idea. As for pre-existence and what His name was. See Jn1..cf..Rev19:13 or 'Word/Wisdom of God'.

Of course I don't see why "YHWH" doesn't suffice.

Further:

The word we translate into 'angel' is more accurately 'messenger'. I once had a quote stating that in the old Hebrew the word for 'messenger' (can't even think of the word anymore) meant 'manifestation' as well. You can find it on the "Is this proof of the Trinity" thread.

Read:

Exo 3:2 and there appeareth unto him a messenger of Jehovah in a flame of fire, out of the midst of the bush, and he seeth, and lo, the bush is burning with fire, and the bush is not consumed.

Exo 3:4 and Jehovah seeth that he hath turned aside to see, and God calleth unto him out of the midst of the bush, and saith, `Moses, Moses;' and he saith, `Here am I.'

Jdg 13:18 And the messenger of Jehovah saith to him, `Why is this--thou dost ask for My name? --and it is Wonderful.' YLT

..cf..

Isa 9:6 For a Child hath been born to us, A Son hath been given to us, And the princely power is on his shoulder, And He doth call his name Wonderful, Counsellor, Mighty God, Father of Eternity, Prince of Peace.

Or as the LXX has it:

Isa 9:6 For a child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder: and his name is called the Messenger of great counsel: for I will bring peace upon the princes, and health to him.

________________

God bless--AVmetro

 

[Axacta]

Me again said:

>>>"I also believe that Michael the Archangel was actually the Lord Jesus Christ in his pre-human birth form."<<<

==========

That Jesus was the archangel Michael is so easily disproved:


-God has complete authority over Satan JOB_1:6-2:7


-Archangel Michael has no authority over Satan JUDE_9


-Jesus, the Son of Man is less than Angels HEB_2:7-9


-Jesus, the Son of God has authority over Satan MT_4:10, MK_8:33, LK_22:31

==========

Me again said:

>>>"The scriptures and the scriptures alone are my guide."<<<

>>>Let's stick to the scriptures to make our case.<<<

Based on me again's claims, me again is a heretic!

 

[AVmetro]

God the Father

-- or --


God the Son

Or..

'Son of God' which entails 'God'. See Jn5:18; Jn19:7; Dan7 etc..

 

[Axacta]

Me again says:

>>>The scriptures and the scriptures alone are my guide.<<<

>>>Let's stick to the scriptures to make our case.<<<

>>>Wow!!! Axacta (alter ego), you're still not providing any scriptural support for this thread?<<<

=========

And me again also says:

>>>The scriptures are replete with the consequences of unconfused [unconfessed] sin that we refuse to repent of.<<<

==========

But when challenged to present supporting Scripture me again admitted:

>>>If we confess our sin to God, would He grant us reprieve from the negative consequences that could result in this mortal life? I want to say yes, but I’m not sure that I could find scriptural support.<<<
==========

Me again at first claimed "scriptures and the scriptures alone are my guide", and claimed that Sheepdog and I were heretics. We presented this Scripture as evidence:

1Jn.3.5-6 But you know that he appeared so that he might take away our sins. And in him is no sin. No one who lives in him keeps on sinning. No one who continues to sin has either seen him or known him.

Me again responded:

>>>This is the only scripture that I am unable to explain<<<

==========

Me again admitted what he teaches is not supported by Scripture, and that he could not refute our Scriptural evidence.

Therefore me again is a hypocrite, and by his own definition, a heretic!

==========

Me again said:

>>>Are you more concerned with how you look or with the veracity of the scriptures?<<<

So me again answer your own question - " Are you more concerned with how you look or with the veracity of the scriptures?"

 

[me again]

Jesus is Lord

Jesus is Lord

Posted by Axacta
Me again said:

• >>>"If a Buddhist or a Hindu or a Moslem or [insert the person’s name here] goes to heaven, it is through Jesus."<<<

Because Buddhists, Hindus and Moslems do not accept Jesus as Savior, Me again obviously believes it is not necessary to believe in Christ as Savior to be saved - this is heresy!

Only through Jesus can a man go to heaven.

If Jesus decides to allow a Hindu into His kingdom, what business is that of yours?

If a Hindu in the year 1750 died without ever hearing the Gospel of Jesus -- and if he goes to heaven -- it is through Jesus.

Praise the Lord!!! :up:

 

[cirisme]

And you're just now noticing this, freak? :shocked:

 

[Axacta]

>Only through Jesus can a man go to heaven.<

That is not the dispute. Your statement presupposes that one does not have to accept Jesus as Savior to be saved.

Please provide Scripture to support this belief.

 

[me again]

Jesus is Lord

Jesus is Lord

Posted by Axacta

• >Only through Jesus can a man go to heaven.<

That is not the dispute. Your statement presupposes that one does not have to accept Jesus as Savior to be saved.

Please provide Scripture to support this belief.

The kingdom of heaven belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is He who determines who will enter His kingdom.

You want scriptures that prove exactly what?

 

[Axacta]

>You want scriptures that prove exactly what?<

To hold up your claim that Buddhists, Hindus and Moslems can be saved without accepting Christ as their Savior. Because if they did accept Christ as their Savior they would be Christians not Buddhists, Hindus and Moslems.

 

[TheologyOnTap]

What happened to Freak giving Me Again the answer to the questions posed to Freak?

It seems fair that if Me Again needs to answer according to the parameters Freak has laid out, such a standard cuts both ways...

I'd was getting really interested in this...

C'mon Freak...

where are you?

 

[AVmetro]

The kingdom of heaven belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ. It is He who determines who will enter His kingdom.

And His *guidelines* FOR acceptance are laid out in the scriptures.