my only prowess in making predictions stems from my 77-years of life in the united statesgrowing up under president truman, eisenhower, kennedy, nixon, .....etc.
etc.i was a widdle kid sitting in front of a tiny black and white tv set when the very first broadcastsof political conventions, deal-making, debates (nixon vs kennedy), assassinations (jfk, rfk, martin luther king, etc.
) i grew up with duck and cover under my elementary schooldesk, the cold war, the iron curtain, the korean war, the vietnam war and i went to federal prisonas a jw conscientious objector while hippies, flower children, political activists protested and universitystudents were fired up on by troops.i grew up reading newspapers (2 of them).
If the people of Wisconsin are paying attention their Democrat Governor has done a tremendous job balancing the budget and even lowering property taxes. Unfortunately, there is so much misinformation and spin I doubt the facts matter to half the population.
Report: Wisconsin's debt is lowest in at least 25 years - WPR
jude 1:9 (kjv) yet michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the lord rebuke thee.. matthew 4:10 (kjv) then saith jesus unto him, get thee hence, satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.
.
.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....
Comparing LXX translations (Tigray's, Wever's and Benton') suggests variants in the Greek versions.
Tigray's translation:
"O heavens, rejoice with Him Bow to Him, all sons of the divine. 22 O nations, rejoice with His people And let all angels of the divine strengthen themselves in Him."
Wever's (NETS) translation:
Be glad oh skies with him and let all the divine sons do obeisance to him. Be glad oh nations with his people and let all the angels of God prevail for him.
Now note the changes reflected in Brenton's.
Brenton's translation: Rejoice, ye heavens, with him, and let all the angels of God worship him; rejoice ye Gentiles, with his people, and let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in him;
I don't wish to spend too much time on this but the writer of Hebrews either only had at his disposal (or chose the reading) that now is reflected in the Brenton translation. All of this betrays the discomfort some had with this section of Deuteronomy. It seems apparent also that 'sons of God' in verse 43 (as well as vs 8) caused discomfort. Various parallel attempts were made to reinterpret the expression as referring to Israelites or angels.
jude 1:9 (kjv) yet michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the lord rebuke thee.. matthew 4:10 (kjv) then saith jesus unto him, get thee hence, satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.
.
.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....
I should have added that the LXX's unique translating also has Yahweh addressed as an 'angel' of the Most High.
jude 1:9 (kjv) yet michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the lord rebuke thee.. matthew 4:10 (kjv) then saith jesus unto him, get thee hence, satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.
.
.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....
And again, when God brings his firstborn into the world, he says, “Let all God’s angels worship him.”
Heb 1:6
This is an interesting example of the writer of Hebrews freely identifying Yahweh with Jesus. The quote is from the LXX Deut 32:43 (also reflected in DDS 4Q44 which uses "Divine Ones rather than angels. It was edited out in the MT) and follows vv. 8,9 where the Lord (Yahweh in MT) is apportioned the Land of Israel from the Most High. There is no reference to another figure, the verse is about Yahweh. The writer of Hebrews clearly identified Jesus the son of God as the manifestation of Yahweh the son of the Most High.
Again, this is another stage of the development and may not reflect the intent or usage of any other authors.
jude 1:9 (kjv) yet michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the lord rebuke thee.. matthew 4:10 (kjv) then saith jesus unto him, get thee hence, satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.
.
.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....
Remember, Revelation is a collection of Jewish apocalyptic works redacted and reframed by a Christian. This was done in other Jewish apocalyptic works as well, so this is not unusual. This explains the nonlinear and repetitive narrative. There are not two battles nor are all the nations gathered for war and defeated twice, these are stand-alone scenes using slightly different imagery, in one the Logos is a Lamb in another he is a lion, in another a mighty angel, in another Michael. (reading a single artificially divided chapter sometimes has the Logos shift personas multiple times). The Christian reuse of this material, (with segue and framing interpolations) reveals that he understood his Jesus Christ as the primary actor in all of them. This Christ is the also the Alpha and Omega and is equaled to the God Almighty, the King of Kings and Lord of Lords (Dan 2:47) in eternal glory and power, because he is the Logos/Wisdom/Son of God hence actually a projection of God.
jude 1:9 (kjv) yet michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the lord rebuke thee.. matthew 4:10 (kjv) then saith jesus unto him, get thee hence, satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.
.
.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....
To the One sitting on the throne and to the Lamb be the blessing and the honor and the glory and the ruling power forever and ever.”
So who receives the "blessing and the honor and the glory and the ruling power forever and ever."?
Are they not described collectively as if the lamb is an emanation of God?
my only prowess in making predictions stems from my 77-years of life in the united statesgrowing up under president truman, eisenhower, kennedy, nixon, .....etc.
etc.i was a widdle kid sitting in front of a tiny black and white tv set when the very first broadcastsof political conventions, deal-making, debates (nixon vs kennedy), assassinations (jfk, rfk, martin luther king, etc.
) i grew up with duck and cover under my elementary schooldesk, the cold war, the iron curtain, the korean war, the vietnam war and i went to federal prisonas a jw conscientious objector while hippies, flower children, political activists protested and universitystudents were fired up on by troops.i grew up reading newspapers (2 of them).
Harris will win but again the Trump camp will test the system by threats of violence and captured judicial oversight. Years of embarrassing shame on the American image will further erode the democratic ideal. If Trump does win, Harris will concede, and Biden will peacefully transfer power. The rest of the first world will shake their heads in disbelief and mock American credulity and embrace of hate. The markets will become unstable. Interest rates will rise as will inflation. We will get through it.
jude 1:9 (kjv) yet michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the lord rebuke thee.. matthew 4:10 (kjv) then saith jesus unto him, get thee hence, satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.
.
.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....
If Jehovah is the 'son of man', who is the 'Ancient of Days/that One'?
The God Almighty, Most High. There was a genuine difference between camps of scribes. Some saw Yahweh as an emanation/agent/son of El Most High while some like 2nd Isaiah and a couple Psalm writers combined the two. These two ideas appear to have been in tension in the 5th century forward. It seems an idea only recently becoming popularized. Most research assumes the Most High's delegation of Israel to Yahweh in Deut 32 reflects a very early form that somehow escaped the editors. It might rather actually reflect a later theological development (or possibly preserved with that new interpretation), where the Most High is far too transcendent to interact directly with material things and He uses the agency of a Logos/Son.
It is important to realize that not every writer shared this concept in identical ways. IOW, the writer describing Logos may not have had in mind all the other names/terms used by other writers in different contexts. Each pericope was meant to be understood in its own context. I'm not therefore sure we should assume the writer of Dan 7 understood Yahweh as identical with the SofM/Michael.
It gets messy. Daniel is a composite work made up of centuries old stories combined with apocalyptic elements from the Maccabean period. It also went through some editing in the years following. Notice in chapt 9, the only section that mentions 'Yahweh', and how even in this section the use is inconsistent. It's difficult to understand the motives but it would seem some editing is involved. IOW, did the writer of the apocalyptic sections (or even just chapt 9) use the tetragrammaton (my/our God YHWH) of not? If so, did he differentiate him from the 'Most High' the expression in Chapts 3,4,5 or the 'God of heaven', 'Lord of Kings' and 'God of Gods' in chapt 2 or 'Ancient of Days' in 7?
jude 1:9 (kjv) yet michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the lord rebuke thee.. matthew 4:10 (kjv) then saith jesus unto him, get thee hence, satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.
.
.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....
Pete: whomever he may be thinking of, we can only work on what is written. I am not struggling as you say, I believe it's very clear. Jesus and Michael are not the same, but thanks for that info.
Jesus, (a name likely drawn from that same Zechariah section aka branch) is a separate figure in some contexts. Much like the Logos was separate from Wisdom in some late Jewish works but used pretty interchangeably in others. Similarly in Daniel (in its final redaction) an editor equates the Son of Man with Michael. These names were plastic/somewhat loose in usage. Philo sees the Logos as basically the sum of other emanations. The earliest Christians apparently felt similar. Jesus is called Son of Man, Son of God, Wisdom and Logos as well as other terms associated with the second power concept. 'Michael' in Revelation (which was likely a collection of Jewish works before being redacted into a Christian one) is depicted again as the warrior great prince/angel/Son of Man. It seems likely that the Christian responsible for the redaction of this Jewish symbolism assumed readers would understand the 'Michael' figure as another facet/face of the 'Lamb', the Lion, the 'Christ' 'Son of Man' and 'mighty Angel' in a second power warrior role. Yes, that might be surprising but I'm of the mind that the various 'strong angels' in Revelation are likewise symbols of this same concept. Note that the 'strong angel' is described in the typical theophanic manner as Yahweh (Eze 1:26-28) and Jesus (Matt 17:2) are.
Then I saw another mighty angel coming down from heaven. He was robed in a cloud, with a rainbow above his head; his face was like the sun, and his legs were like fiery pillars. 2 He was holding a little scroll, which lay open in his hand. He planted his right foot on the sea and his left foot on the land, 3 and he gave a loud shout like the roar of a lion. When he shouted, the voices of the seven thunders spoke.
jude 1:9 (kjv) yet michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, the lord rebuke thee.. matthew 4:10 (kjv) then saith jesus unto him, get thee hence, satan: for it is written, thou shalt worship the lord thy god, and him only shalt thou serve.
.
.....my understanding is that you all believe jesus is michael the archangel....... the two verses above describe two different personalities..... the archangel in jude rebuked satan in the name of the father, because he knew it was not his place to rebuke him, he knew that he didn't have the authority to do so, that the only person who possesses this authority is god himself.... while jesus, in matthew 4:10, does not need to invoke the name of the father to rebuke satan, because the father and jesus are one, not michael and jesus..... .... because michael the archangel is not jesus christ our savior.....
If Jude understood Michael and Jesus were the same, would he not have referenced that important point?
According to Origen, the writer of Jude was quoting the Assumption of Moses (1rstcentury CE). We are missing about 1/3 of that so it's possible it was within that section. Others believe he was referring to a composition that included the Assumption and the Apocalypse of Moses (wherein Michael is driving God Most High's cherub-pulled chariot carrying the bodies of Adam and Abel to be buried in Eden which has been relocated to the 3rd heaven). This gives Michael the role that would explain the Jude passage where Satan demands Michael reveal the location of Moses' body.
The writer of Jude may been in fact combining that tradition with the Zechariah scene above. Many regarded that pericope as proof of a second power, the angel of the Lord, that acts and speaks as the Lord and seems to be acting on behalf of the 'Almighty' to war with enemies. In short there was a diversity of terms and roles assigned for emanations of God. Some of it appears by design others may have been artifacts of translating.
It would be far too much to expect every writer to share identical imagery and conceptualization of the Great Prince Michael/Angel of the Lord/Son/Logos. You are struggling because you are mistaking these allegorical stories as literal and frustrated that they are not consistent in detail.
