Who really is Michael the Archangel? (page 15)

designs

Yes these theologians do disagree, some saying Jesus is Michael and others saying No, they disagree DD

What else do you call opposing views.

Deputy Dog

Yes these theologians do disagree, some saying Jesus is Michael and others saying No, they disagree DD

What else do you call opposing views.

I guess that depends on who YOU call a theologian doesn't it. If you knew half of what you claim about theology, you would know that they agree on much more than what you're letting on.

Think About It

EGO EIMI.

Jesus is the I AM.

If that's all the proof a person needs.......the same thing could be claimed by Popeye.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8TRoMSG-5I

Think About It

PSacramento

Where in scripture does it say that Jesus is the archangel Michael?

You'd think that something like that would be plainly stated.

What is stated about Michael is that he is ONE of the "chief princes", which would mean that he is not unique ( And Jesus is) and that there is more than ONE "chief prince".

Chalam

You'd think that something like that would be painly stated.

Unless you are a JW

Blessings,

Stephen

They sure are divided on Michael as has been shown. And on and on it goes, Eastern Rite, Coptic, Oriental Orthodox, Church of Rome, Protestant, Fundamentalists all with differing views on the Bible but claiming the Trinity (well actuallly different Trinity definitions, the Filioque being one small example). What does that say about these Cults.

You say the unbleiever in these beliefs is going to Hell or worse.

We say you're a Joke.

Think About It

Here's a link to an Arian Catholic forum that gives good insight into the centuries old Trinty debate.

http://forum.arian-catholic.org/index.php

Think About It

kurtbethel

Baptist theologian John Gill on Michael the Archangel being Jesus Christ www.temcat.com/10-Spiritualism/ArchangelMichael-Jude_9.pdf

The camps are always split on the same exact Verses, that's the interesting point..........

That is an interesting read. I do not have a need for Michael to be Jesus, or to not be Jesus, as I have no association with any group claiming or denying that concept. My question about the matter concerns that I find nothing where Jesus explicitly says he is Michael. He does not explain that to his sometimes thick headed disciples, and he had a perfect chance to do so after the resurrection. He did not. The concept comes from cobbling together certain passages and making inferences. That makes for shaky doctrine.

TD

MadJW

...the voice CAME from the ass, JUST as the voice comes from Jesus.

Only if speaking with a voice is the same thing as descending with a voice.

There's a definite connection between a voice and speech. There's not a definite connection between a voice and movement.

It is NOT Greek that makes you so dogmatic- or the pro-trinitarian translations would QUICKLY transalte it as YOU insist it should be. Do modern Greek Bibles give it that spin?

I haven't said that any Bible should be be translated differently. If that's the idea I've given, then I'm even a worse communicator than I thought.

I've said that translators are using the word "With" here in a different manner than you are used to thinking about it. "With" is a very versatile word:

To deal with the problem (interaction) MadJW together with his friend (accompaniment) broke the window with his hand (possession) and entered the room with the orchestra playing in the background (accompanying circumstance)

That's four different definitions of the word "With" in the same sentence. The orchestra playing in the background has absolutely nothing to do with the act of walking in the room. It would be absurd to say that the orchestra is the same agent as MadJW performing the act of entering the room. (i.e. MadJW is the orchestra)

A 1 Thessalonians 4:16 the voice/sound of the archangel has absolutely nothing to do with the act of the Lord descending from heaven. Without that connection there is no basis for a definite claim that the source of the archangel's voice is the Lord himself.

Do modern Greek Bibles give it that spin?

Like most modern languages, Greek has evolved into a looser, more intuitive form without as many inflections and rules.

They're really aren't that many Modern Greek Bibles. (The only two I have are Vamvas and the NWT) and they both render this verse using "με" (With) instead of "εν" (In) as was used in Ancient Greek.

designs

Stephen even Fundamentalist Theologians disagree with you, and that highlights the point really doesn't it.

Who really is Michael the Archangel?

Share this