Spirituality
03 Dec 09
12 Dec 09
Originally posted by galveston75==============================
And you call yourself a christian after all those comments? Unbelieveable.....You don't believe anything in the Bible it seems so why even waist the time to say your Christian? I've never heard anything like this...Wow!!!
And you call yourself a christian after all those comments? Unbelieveable.....You don't believe anything in the Bible it seems so why even waist the time to say your Christian? I've never heard anything like this...Wow!!!
=====================================
You haven't ?
What about people who believe Jesus is an angel and not God incarnate ? They call themselves Christians too.
What about people who believe Christ is the archangel Michael and will not reign forever and ever as it says the Son of God will ?
Acts has Jesus telling His disciples "You shall be My witnesses ..." but they prefer to insist that they are Jehovah's witnesses, meaning Jesus is not Jehovah.
They call themselves Christians also.
12 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillok Jay, your getting called out on this one, why do Jehovahs witnesses believe those things, if you please. shall we start with the first one, that Christ may be the archangel Michael, shall we? and just to get you started, shall you explain this verse in terms that are both logical, comprehensible, in harmony with the context and the bible as a whole.
[b]==============================
And you call yourself a christian after all those comments? Unbelieveable.....You don't believe anything in the Bible it seems so why even waist the time to say your Christian? I've never heard anything like this...Wow!!!
=====================================
You haven't ?
What about people who belie ah's witnesses, meaning Jesus is not Jehovah.
They call themselves Christians also.[/b]
(1 Thessalonians 4:16) . . .because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.
if you please
13 Dec 09
4 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie======================================
ok Jay, your getting called out on this one, why do Jehovahs witnesses believe those things, if you please. shall we start with the first one, that Christ may be the archangel Michael, shall we? and just to get you started, shall you explain this verse in terms that are both logical, comprehensible, in harmony with the context and the bible as a wh ...[text shortened]... God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.
if you please[/b]
ok Jay, your getting called out on this one, why do Jehovahs witnesses believe those things, if you please. shall we start with the first one, that Christ may be the archangel Michael, shall we?
===============================
You have the right to call me out. But I think we have been through this before. This is likely to be repetitive discussion.
====================================
and just to get you started, shall you explain this verse in terms that are both logical, comprehensible, in harmony with the context and the bible as a whole.
(1 Thessalonians 4:16) . . .because the Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.
if you please
==============================
Okay.
"Because the Lord Himself, with a shout of command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet of God, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first." (1 Thess. 4:16 RcV )
"logical, comprehensible, in harmony with the context and the bible as a whole. "
1.) Why do you HAVE to assume that the "Lord Himself" is the one whose "voice" shouts ?
Is there something about the grammer that insists that the voice can only be the voice of "the Lord Himself"?
Why cannot "the Lord Himself" simply refer to "the Lord Himself" is the one Who will descend from heaven ?
I need your grammatical proof that that is the only understanding of the Greek, ie. the shout has to be the voice of the Lord Himself.
2.) What is it about the grammer that insist that "the shout of command" can only be understood as the shout of the "Lord Himself"?
Why cannot the Lord Himself descend with the shout of command of an archangel whose voice is heard ?
I think you are trying to overturn TOO MUCH Scripture on this thin and questionable interpretation - the voice of the archangel is the voice of Jesus Christ.
Is this your strongest argument that Christ is an archangel ?
13 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by jaywill1.) Why do you HAVE to assume that the "Lord Himself" is the one whose "voice" shouts ?
[b]======================================
ok Jay, your getting called out on this one, why do Jehovahs witnesses believe those things, if you please. shall we start with the first one, that Christ may be the archangel Michael, shall we?
===============================
You have the right to call me out. But I think we have been through sus Christ.
Is this your strongest argument that Christ is an archangel ?[/b]
because that's what the scripture says!
2.) Is this your strongest argument that Christ is an archangel ?
no this was simply the very first scripture that came to my mind,
The prefix “arch,” meaning “chief” or “principal,” implies that there is only one archangel, the chief angel; in the Scriptures, “archangel” is never found in the plural. First Thessalonians 4:16, in speaking of the preeminence of the archangel and the authority of his office, does so in reference to the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ: “The Lord himself will descend from heaven with a commanding call, with an archangel’s voice and with God’s trumpet, and those who are dead in union with Christ will rise first.” It is, therefore, not without significance that the only name directly associated with the word “archangel” is Michael.
(Jude 9) . . .But when Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.”
i do not expect you to accept this Jaywill, for that would be to contradict your cherished belief in the trinity, however, this belief of ours, has its basis in scripture, and even though you shall not accept or give credence to it, i think its important you at the very least understand why we believe this.
i have checked with the Greek interlinear, there is no basis for assuming that it is the voice of anyone other than the Christ.
13 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobieNot sure what Greek interlinear you are referencing, but of the ones that I have access to, it doesn't read as you suggest.
1.) Why do you HAVE to assume that the "Lord Himself" is the one whose "voice" shouts ?
because that's what the scripture says!
2.) Is this your strongest argument that Christ is an archangel ?
no this was simply the very first scripture that came to my mind,
The prefix “arch,” meaning “chief” or “principal,” implies that there is onl ...[text shortened]... inear, there is no basis for assuming that it is the voice of anyone other than the Christ.
The Greek isn't as opaque as it sounds providing you work with it and through it. The actual reading is something along these lines:
"That same (Himself, God) --- THE Master--- in order (effect, as in shout-of-command) in sound (or voice) of-chief messenger and in trumpet of God shall-be-descending (or, shall-be-down-stepping) from heaven... "
Here, you can see that there are at least two actions taking place prior to God's descent from Heaven: the voice of the chief messenger and the sound of the trumpet of God. Neither of these are necessarily emanating from God, nor are they necessarily not coming from Him... at least, not in this passage.
More to the point, however, is the whole lost-the-forest-in-the-middle-of-the-trees thing. The intent of this passage was for the readers to begin comforting one another about the return of Christ--- emphatically not as a tool to prove which of the disparate and/or aberrant ideas was the correct view.
13 Dec 09
4 edits
Originally posted by FreakyKBHfirstly there is no reference to God in this passage other than to his trumpet, none whatsoever, so please do not try to impute that there is, the only reference is to the Greek, kyrios, meaning Lord. NOT GOD, NOT ALMIGHTY, simply Lord and in this case, clearly with reference to Jesus Christ..
Not sure what Greek interlinear you are referencing, but of the ones that I have access to, it doesn't read as you suggest.
The Greek isn't as opaque as it sounds providing you work with it and through it. The actual reading is something along these lines:
"That same (Himself, God) --- THE Master--- in order (effect, as in shout-of-command) in sound y not as a tool to prove which of the disparate and/or aberrant ideas was the correct view.
Secondly we are actually interested what is in the passage, not what is not.
Thirdly we are trying to determine why, as the scripture clearly and unambiguously states, that Christ comes with an archangels voice. If you can explain that, then you words shall have some relevancy , as they stand, they say practically nothing, other than expressing an opinion that the Greek is opaque or otherwise. I therefore repeat the point, there is NO BASIS for assuming that the archangels voice is with reference to any other personage other than the Lord, Jesus Christ, for none is mentioned, not in the immediate context, nor anywhere else.
the interlinear reads
hoti autos ho kurios en keleusmati en phone of archaggelou kia en salpiggi theou katabesetai ap ouranou kia hoi nekroi en Christo anastesontai proton
literally,
that same, the master, in order effect, in sound of Chief messenger, and in trumpet of God, shall be down stepping from heaven, and the dead, in anointed (Christ), shall be standing up, before most
if you state that the Lord, in this instance is the Christ, which it clearly is from the context, then he comes, AS THE SCRIPTURE STATES, with the sound of an archangels voice.
i am sorry if i sound harsh or uncompromising, that is not my intention, however we must be quite clear about these things, for any inaccuracy can lead to a whole lot of misconception for when trying to understand the Bible, one part surely must be evaluated in the context of another, so that a broad but accurate picture can be established.
13 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by robbie carrobie================================
1.) Why do you HAVE to assume that the "Lord Himself" is the one whose "voice" shouts ?
because that's what the scripture says!
2.) Is this your strongest argument that Christ is an archangel ?
no this was simply the very first scripture that came to my mind,
The prefix “arch,” meaning “chief” or “principal,” implies that there is onl ...[text shortened]... inear, there is no basis for assuming that it is the voice of anyone other than the Christ.
Jude 9) . . .But when Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.”
=================================
So what ? Is that suppose to prove that Jesus Christ is Michael the angel ?
Jude 9 says Michael told Satan, "Jehovah rebuke you". There is NOTHING in that letter to even remotely hint that Michael is Jesus Christ.
"Jude, a slave of Jesus Christ and a brother of James ...." (v.1)
Why didn't Jude write "Jude, a slave of [Michael the archangel] " if he wanted to highlight such a thing that Jesus Christ is an archangel ?
==========================
i do not expect you to accept this Jaywill, for that would be to contradict your cherished belief in the trinity, however, this belief of ours, has its basis in scripture, and even though you shall not accept or give credence to it, i think its important you at the very least understand why we believe this.
======================== [/b]
I understand why you believe it. I think it is because you want to remain in the Old Testament dispensation. And you will not believe in the incarnation of God as a man.
I really don't see the difference between your opposition to the gospel and that of the Jews who wanted to stone Jesus for saying that He was the "I AM" of their Hebrew Torah.
What is the difference? Except for the teaching that Christ is an angel I see no difference in your contradicting the New Testament from those who wanted to stone Christ for saying He was the "I AM" of Exodus.
============================
i have checked with the Greek interlinear, there is no basis for assuming that it is the voice of anyone other than the Christ.
===============================
Look at Revelation 14:14,15 which is the exact symbolic vision corresponding to the teaching of First Thessalonians 4:17:
"And I saw, and behold, there was a white cloud, and on the cloud One like the Son of Man sitting, having a golden crown on His head and a sharp sickle in His hand.
And another angel came out of the temple, crying with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, Send forth Your sickle and reap, for the hour to reap has come because the harvest of the earth is ripe.
And He who sat on the cloud thrust His sickle upon the earth, and the earth was reaped." (Rev. 14:14-16)
It is the angel's voice there speaking to Christ. And this symbolism corresponds to Christ descending for His people left on the earth, to take them up.
13 Dec 09
3 edits
Originally posted by jaywillok, firstly the passage in Jude was only cited to show that in biblical terms the only reference to an archangel is with reference to Michael and to Christ. Thessalonians clearly states that Christ comes with an archangels voice, Jude clearly states that the archangel is Michael.
[b]================================
Jude 9) . . .But when Michael the archangel had a difference with the Devil and was disputing about Moses’ body, he did not dare to bring a judgment against him in abusive terms, but said: “May Jehovah rebuke you.”
=================================
So what ? Is that suppose to prove that Jesus Christ is orresponds to Christ descending for His people left on the earth, to take them up.[/b]
As for you other assertions, can we please stick to what is actually written in the bible and you can speculate as to what is not for your own pleasure.
you have still as yet provided no explanation as to why Christ should come with an archangels voice, none whatsoever. i do not accept that in Thessalonians an angel is speaking to Christ, the context clearly states that it is Christ who comes, the verse clearly states that the LORD, in this instance is Jesus Christ comes with an archangels voice, if you are willing to deny scripture then you should at least have a reason for doing so. As for us, we have no opposition to what is actually written in scripture, none whatsoever.
But what is quite clear, if you cannot then the belief must stand, and you have no right whatsoever to call someone unchristian for believing WHAT IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE.
13 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieQuoted from a website on whether Jesus is Michael:
ok, firstly the passage in Jude was only cited to show that in biblical terms the only reference to an archangel is with reference to Michael and to Christ. Thessalonians clearly states that Christ comes with an archangels voice, Jude clearly states that the archangel is Michael.
As for you other assertions, can we please stick to what is actua ...[text shortened]... ight whatsoever to call someone unchristian for believing WHAT IS ACTUALLY WRITTEN IN THE BIBLE.
" They believe Jesus is a mighty God and Jehovah is the almighty. That's two Gods, this is not monotheism. Then what of the angel Gabriel that also means mighty like God does this make him Jesus too? Where is Michael now since the resurrection has not occurred and Michael fights before it in Dan.12. Yet he is Jesus. Whose name is above all names forever. Did the angel Michael incarnate to die for our sins?
What about Micah whose name means who is like Jehovah. The names don’t give a parallel but beg a question. Who is like God? Obviously no one. If Jesus is Michael than who are the other angels? Are they God too. Since he is only one of the chief princes. "
13 Dec 09
2 edits
Originally posted by jaywillthat is something totally different and quite erroneous, as per usual your reference has no understanding as to what it is we actually profess.
Quoted from a website on whether Jesus is Michael:
[b]" They believe Jesus is a mighty God and Jehovah is the almighty. That's two Gods, this is not monotheism. Then what of the angel Gabriel that also means mighty like God does this make him Jesus too? Where is Michael now since the resurrection has not occurred and Michael fights before it in Dan.12. ...[text shortened]... who are the other angels? Are they God too. Since he is only one of the chief princes. "[/b]
Now if you shall tell the forum, why Christ Jesus comes with an Archangels voice, then your credibility may be renewed, as it is you have taken great pains to evade it, i for one, know what it is like dealing with a born again Christian, for they exhibit exactly the same type of behaviour, they slither from one passage to another, without actually establishing anything with relevance to the point at hand, so if you please Jaywill, try to focus, why does Christ come with an archangels voice, if you know the state it, if you dont then state it, for a workman of the Lord should be able to handle the truth aright. As for these below the belt attempts and cheap shots, i am sorry but a Christian should be above such things, well a real one anyway.
it seems to my Jaywill you have succumbed to the usual prejudice. You have called into question whether me and Galvo are Christians, stated why we should not be considered Christians without actually knowing the reasons why, Well now you do. you should therefore be more careful in the future, for as in this instance, your reasoning is totally devoid of substantiation, and once again we find ourselves having to uphold what is actually written in Gods word, as opposed to what is not.
13 Dec 09
Originally posted by robbie carrobiefirstly there is no reference to God in this passage other than to his trumpet, none whatsoever, so please do not try to impute that there is, the only reference is to the Greek, kyrios, meaning Lord. NOT GOD, NOT ALMIGHTY, simply Lord and in this case, clearly with reference to Jesus Christ..
firstly there is no reference to God in this passage other than to his trumpet, none whatsoever, so please do not try to impute that there is, the only reference is to the Greek, kyrios, meaning Lord. NOT GOD, NOT ALMIGHTY, simply Lord and in this case, clearly with reference to Jesus Christ..
Secondly we are actually interested what is in the pa ...[text shortened]... be evaluated in the context of another, so that a broad but accurate picture can be established.
Really? Try reading the entire passage in the Greek, and you'll see that this is, indeed, speaking of God's return. Start in v14.
Secondly we are actually interested what is in the passage, not what is not.
If you are interested in the content, then you shouldn't add as it suits your viewpoint. However, I would caution you to not make an entire doctrine out of one passage of Scripture. Doing so will end in all kinds of trouble. Scripture must be considered in its totality, not in isolation.
Thirdly we are trying to determine why, as the scripture clearly and unambiguously states, that Christ comes with an archangels voice.
This passage also "clearly and unambiguously states" that Christ returns with those who are asleep in Jesus. Does that mean He is also they?
i am sorry if i sound harsh or uncompromising
Actually you sound both, but not in a good way. We should be uncompromising in our submission to God, not to a perspective. If we want the truth, the truth will be given. If we simply want to protect a position, we're going to sound, well, like you.
one part surely must be evaluated in the context of another, so that a broad but accurate picture can be established.
Absolutely. However, you're clearly isolating one verse, reading into it what is not there, and ignoring the entire realm of doctrine that would shed any light necessary in clearing up whatever confusion exists regarding how to consider the passage at hand.
13 Dec 09
Add to this the absolute quagmire Revelations becomes when "armed" with the idea that Michael and the Lord Jesus Christ are one and the same. The entire narrative becomes absurd.
... which says nothing of the rest of Scripture which so clearly depicts the Lord Jesus Christ as He is: one member of the Trinity.
13 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHno its speaking of Christ's return. i have warned you once, this is the last time that i shall do so, it is speaking of Christ return. This is clearly seen from the context and the passage in question, you shall note the reference in the Greek, Christos, or the anointed one. you attempt to equate this with God has no scriptural basis and is simply an attempt to stamp your belief on and to supersede what scripture actually states.
[b]firstly there is no reference to God in this passage other than to his trumpet, none whatsoever, so please do not try to impute that there is, the only reference is to the Greek, kyrios, meaning Lord. NOT GOD, NOT ALMIGHTY, simply Lord and in this case, clearly with reference to Jesus Christ..
Really? Try reading the entire passage in the Greek, a y in clearing up whatever confusion exists regarding how to consider the passage at hand.[/b]
there were two passages of scripture quoted, one from Thessalonians and one from Jude, the only to Biblical references to an archangel. i can sight more, however since that neither you or Jaywill have satisfactorily addressed either, i have refrained from referencing the others until you do so.
these other points are merely a statement of opinion and have no relevance to the actual scripture, i will not comment upon them, therefore, when you can actually answer the question, why does Christ come with an archangels voice, then we shall have something to talk about, as it stands, all else is just empty rhetoric, from which i gather, either you do not know, or you have as yet not formed and alternative and are taking great pains to be evasive until you think of something.
there is no confusion, none whatsoever, i have provided two verses, of which you have yet to provide any insight into, therefore you assertions that the verse is taken in isolation is nonsense.
13 Dec 09
1 edit
Originally posted by FreakyKBHtrinity is an essentially a pre Christian and pagan doctrine borrowed from the Greeks, neither Christ not Paul makes any mention of it, and i myself am tired of discussing it with persons who are trying to defend a position of utter dogma. believe what you want, but under no circumstances make any attempt to discuss it with me, its false, pre-Christian, pagan and blasphemous.
Add to this the absolute quagmire Revelations becomes when "armed" with the idea that Michael and the Lord Jesus Christ are one and the same. The entire narrative becomes absurd.
... which says nothing of the rest of Scripture which so clearly depicts the Lord Jesus Christ as He is: one member of the Trinity.
13 Dec 09
Originally posted by galveston75i mentioned issues only from the genesis. and because i have a brain and i know they are incorrect and also i know enough to say it, i am not a christian, right?
And you call yourself a christian after all those comments? Unbelieveable.....You don't believe anything in the Bible it seems so why even waist the time to say your Christian? I've never heard anything like this...Wow!!!
i feel sorry for you.