ARCHIVE: Is this really demonic doctrine or what...
- Thread starter Freak
- Start date
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
I would still like you to answer the question as would multiple other people here.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Are you going to answer the question?
freak
You are not confusing "The Angel of the Lord" with the created angels in regard to this topic are you?
Angels are spirit beings created by God, to minister to the heirs of salvation.
But the word "Angel" as demonstrated, means "Messenger". Therefore it is not out of place for the Lord, in his pre-incarnate appearances, to be described as "The Angel of the Lord". It is our englishing of the phrase that is at fault, not the theology, or the Bible. Me again is wrong in equating Michael with a theophany of the Son of God, but the principle stands that the Lord did appear to OT saints at times, and he was referred to as "The Angel of the Lord" (the Messenger), the bringer of God's Word, being the Word himself.
peace in Him
You are not confusing "The Angel of the Lord" with the created angels in regard to this topic are you?
Angels are spirit beings created by God, to minister to the heirs of salvation.
But the word "Angel" as demonstrated, means "Messenger". Therefore it is not out of place for the Lord, in his pre-incarnate appearances, to be described as "The Angel of the Lord". It is our englishing of the phrase that is at fault, not the theology, or the Bible. Me again is wrong in equating Michael with a theophany of the Son of God, but the principle stands that the Lord did appear to OT saints at times, and he was referred to as "The Angel of the Lord" (the Messenger), the bringer of God's Word, being the Word himself.
peace in Him
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
And you made certain very incorrect assertions on this thread that you are either too stubborn or too proud to correct or retract. So please answer the question. You are losing whatever credibility you may have initially had in bringing this up.
Christ is by no means 'Michael' nor is Jesus a 'created being'.
Remember though that the Messenger of YHWH was the one who spoke 'I AM' out of the burning bush..cf..Jn8:58.
Solly is right in that 'Angel' often gives off the *stereotypical* image of a 'winged flying ""Angel""' The word does though simply mean 'messenger' which is precisely what the 'Word' of God [Rev19:13] would be.
Did anybody see my posts at the first of the thread?
The Lxx even refers to Jesus as thus:
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. [Brenton]
I'll reiterate that I find the idea of Jesus being the Archangel highly inaccurate.
God bless you--AVmetro
Remember though that the Messenger of YHWH was the one who spoke 'I AM' out of the burning bush..cf..Jn8:58.
Solly is right in that 'Angel' often gives off the *stereotypical* image of a 'winged flying ""Angel""' The word does though simply mean 'messenger' which is precisely what the 'Word' of God [Rev19:13] would be.
Did anybody see my posts at the first of the thread?
The Lxx even refers to Jesus as thus:
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. [Brenton]
I'll reiterate that I find the idea of Jesus being the Archangel highly inaccurate.
God bless you--AVmetro
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Dear AV:
But my point has been two-fold. First, let's not set up a blanket straw man and knock it down. I have no idea what Me Again believes about the Trinity (and I doubt that he knows either) but the fact remains that there have been orthodox people throughout Church history who have had that Michael is an angelic name for Christ. They have done so without abandaning any shred of Trinitarian orthodoxy, so to pick this particular teaching and to label it as a demonic doctrine is misplaced. Now again, to clarify, the way Me Again intends it may very well be thoroughly in error, but we cannot broad brush this and step beyond what is required.
Second, the other point is that Freak has made many strong statement here insinuating that any belief that Christ was ever referred to as an "Angel" or appeared as the "Angel of the Lord" was just as demonic. He swallowed both feet and is too proud to admit his error.
I don't mind exposing error.. in fact, I like exposing errror, but I have tried to make it my aim to be very fair to those who disagree with me, and not misrepresent or overblow the situation. While I am very strident in my beliefs, I grant the grace to other orthodox variations that I want them to give me.
But my point has been two-fold. First, let's not set up a blanket straw man and knock it down. I have no idea what Me Again believes about the Trinity (and I doubt that he knows either) but the fact remains that there have been orthodox people throughout Church history who have had that Michael is an angelic name for Christ. They have done so without abandaning any shred of Trinitarian orthodoxy, so to pick this particular teaching and to label it as a demonic doctrine is misplaced. Now again, to clarify, the way Me Again intends it may very well be thoroughly in error, but we cannot broad brush this and step beyond what is required.
Second, the other point is that Freak has made many strong statement here insinuating that any belief that Christ was ever referred to as an "Angel" or appeared as the "Angel of the Lord" was just as demonic. He swallowed both feet and is too proud to admit his error.
I don't mind exposing error.. in fact, I like exposing errror, but I have tried to make it my aim to be very fair to those who disagree with me, and not misrepresent or overblow the situation. While I am very strident in my beliefs, I grant the grace to other orthodox variations that I want them to give me.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Oh no!! I am sorry if I seemed like I was responding in kind to an aggravated post. I am aggravated that Freak is tapdancng and will not answer the question though, so perhaps that is what you sensed.
>I have no idea what Me Again believes about the Trinity (and I doubt that he knows either)<
LOL!
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, this thread is about your assertion - why will you not respond?
LOL!
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, this thread is about your assertion - why will you not respond?
smilax
New member
I don't believe Jesus was Michael. However:
God is not limited: Luke i, 37.
Jesus is limited: Mark vi, 5.
God is not a son of man: Numbers xxiii, 19.
Jesus is the Son of man: Matthew viii, 20.
"So easily disproved" is a bit of a stretch. You may have to do a bit more than proof-texting. As for positive evidence, they will point to Daniel x, 21, xii, 1, and Revelation xii, 7.
I think Jude settles it, though.
God is not limited: Luke i, 37.
Jesus is limited: Mark vi, 5.
God is not a son of man: Numbers xxiii, 19.
Jesus is the Son of man: Matthew viii, 20.
"So easily disproved" is a bit of a stretch. You may have to do a bit more than proof-texting. As for positive evidence, they will point to Daniel x, 21, xii, 1, and Revelation xii, 7.
I think Jude settles it, though.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Your disproves are not as powerful as you think there Axacta. I don't hold to the doctrine, but it is not demonic as long as the Trinity is preserved, and as a nonadherent, I could defeat those points.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Jude and Daniel are the most powerful evidences against.. but it is stilll not a demonic doctrine as long as the Trinity is maintained... and I am cutting to the core of Freak's error here.. and that is his reasoning why this is allegedly demonic which is not based upon those proof texts.. it is because he denies that Christ could appear as or be called an Angel, and thus he has inadvertantly heretized (is that a word) most of the Trinitarians here. Freak should be a man and defend his words or retract them as error. We all make error.
Brother Vinny
Active member
I agree. That being said, there are those who would draw attention to Colossians 1:15 to prove otherwise:
So, how does one rectify the orthodox belief that Jesus is an uncreated being with this verse that seems to say different? Simple. We know that God made man in His own image. God must have, at the very first-- even before He made heaven and the angelic host-- created an image for God the Son to inhabit. This image is what certain Old Testament believers saw when they visibly encountered God.
Now, was this image "Michael"? I don't believe so, but I don't think someone who comes to that conclusion has been seduced by demons (I think a lot of this hypothesis stems from the meaning of the name, Michael-- "who is like God"). Freak has levelled an accusation wholly out of proportion to the degree of the error in question. In doing this, Freak has shown himself to be a respecter of persons: he dislikes me again, so he tears him apart on the smallest of doctrinal issues; on the other hand, he likes c. moore, and is willing to let slide some of the most egregious heresies held by any of our regular posters. Put simply, he strains out a gnat while he swallows a camel.
D
Dee Dee Warren
Guest
Well put Paul. I certainly have no great burden to defend Me Again and his doctrines which I have found to be fuzzy at best, but this is not the hill to die on.
>I think Jude settles it, though.<
OK let me get this straight. You don't like my approach, but you agree with the Scripture I use as evidence and my conclusion.
Smilax I get the feeling from you that if I said "Jesus is God", you would immediately root through the Bible to post all of the verses that point out Jesus is a man - just to be contrary.
OK let me get this straight. You don't like my approach, but you agree with the Scripture I use as evidence and my conclusion.
Smilax I get the feeling from you that if I said "Jesus is God", you would immediately root through the Bible to post all of the verses that point out Jesus is a man - just to be contrary.