Jesus and Michael - One and the same? (exodus, virgin)

[HelpMe]

Originally Posted by t3gah

According to all that you posted almost every angel (messenger) must be Jesus because Jesus was a messenger.


The burning bush is Jesus also? Unbelievable!

1-honestly, that's the stupidest thing i've ever heard regarding this debate. clarify what scripture you drew that from.

he was obviously a man, does that mean every man is jesus to you?to be a man/angel does not make you every man/angel.

2-i don't know where you got that from either.acts7:35(or was it 31)?

Originally Posted by No*s

Sure I can. I did in my thread I just put up in the forum for same faith debates. St. Ignatius was a disciple of the Apostle John. He was martyred in the year 107. He taught that Jesus was God, and he taught it very bluntly. Unless you can dispute the date Ignatius composed that document, I not only can, but just did .

Arius is the most noteworthy individual who denied the Deity of Christ. His support would be the most potent, but he taught Jesus was greater than an angel, and thus, cannot be used as support.

I asked you to prove your theology is compatible with how they saw it then. Anyone can prove virtually anything from Scripture. It's done all the time.

1-i already suggested you learn more about the broad use of words translated as 'god' in english earlier in this thread.see#2.

2-i base my beliefs on the bible over any early church father, trinitarian or otherwise.

3-it's been done ever since the trinity was added to your religion hundreds of years after 'christ'.

St. Irenaeus Against Heresies Book III Chapter 18 Paragraph 7 (about 150 AD):

says nothing of equality between yeshua elohim and his father.

St. Ignatius Ephesians 7.2 (107 AD)

says nothing of equality between yeshua elohim and his father.merely calls yeshua 'lord'(master).you're managing to base beliefs on deciples of men from biblical times, unimpressive.

your other quotes do no more, as i said research what the words(elohim/theos/kurios/ect.) meant. they are far from 'almighty'.

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by No*s

On the subject of Jesus being an angel: How many early Christian documents can you cite on this issue? I can think of one group: Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History contains about two sentances on the Ebionites, but I can quickly counter-balance it with Against Heresies, which paints a fairly interesting picture of how groups like that arose. There may be more on the subject, but I think you'll be hard-pressed to find another person/group that says Jesus is an angel.

This argument is only valid if you hold church history/tradition as a source of spiritual authority - being able to decide what is true and not true. I understand that as an Orthodox christian this is true for you - the Church taken as a whole does not make mistakes - but Protestants would find this argument uncompelling.

Originally Posted by No*s

Hebrews 1 blatantly contradicts it by saying that the Son is greater than the angels, and there's a fairly good chance the Ebionites are the group the author of Hebrews was writing against. Even Arius did not teach the Son was an angel.

Might not this be a quantitative difference rather than a qualitative difference? That is, couldn't it be that Jesus had made himself greater than the angels by his actions rather than him being of some greater type of essence? Or couldn't it just mean that being an archangel, Jesus/Michael was greater than all the rest?

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by lilithu

This argument is only valid if you hold church history/tradition as a source of spiritual authority - being able to decide what is true and not true. I understand that as an Orthodox christian this is true for you - the Church taken as a whole does not make mistakes - but Protestants would find this argument uncompelling.

Until someone can show us evidence that the Bible fell from heaven in it's current form/cannon I will continue to hold Sacred Tradition as authority..... after all, the Bible IS a product of the early church tradition.

Peace,
Scott

** edit **
Only No*s will get this one:
Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou .... I hope I got it right!

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by t3gah

There's a scripture in the Old Testament that states the Moses is God to Aaron. God states this to Moses. The Word was God. Sounds similar. Not the real God but someone acting like God.

So I take it that you do not believe that Jesus was God? Only the Word, which is someone acting like God? I'm not arguing with you - as I said, I have no stake in what any of you believe - just trying to understand where y'all are coming from.

Your argument about the Word being someone acting like God reminds me of logos christology - the idea that Christ is the active principle of God. God in action, not necessarily the same thing as God, certainly lesser. But this is not too far off from my working hypothesis that angels are emanations of God (as I tried to elaborate in the angels and demons thread). So I have yet to see anything to convince me that Jesus and Michael couldn't be one and the same. Not saying that they are; only that they could be.

t3gah, you say that you used to be a Jehovah's Witness and that they teach that Jesus is Michael. What was the evidence that they used to support this claim? Is it only that one verse in Thessalonians?

[HelpMe]

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

Only No*s will get this one:
Ho Kurios mou kai ho Theos mou

the 'lord' of me and the 'god' of me.(thomas)


until someone can show me tradition overriding scripture, or scripture suggesting scripture is not inspired, i will continue to hold scripture above sinful men.

[lilithu]

thanks helpme. the info you provided is awesome. it says that I can't frubal you right now but I won't forget!

[t3gah]

Originally Posted by lilithu

So I take it that you do not believe that Jesus was God? Only the Word, which is someone acting like God? I'm not arguing with you - as I said, I have no stake in what any of you believe - just trying to understand where y'all are coming from.

Your argument about the Word being someone acting like God reminds me of logos christology - the idea that Christ is the active principle of God. God in action, not necessarily the same thing as God, certainly lesser.

Exodus 4:16 He will be your spokesman to the people; and it will happen, that he will be to you a mouth, and you will be to him as God. (World English Bible)

God is speaking to Moses in the scripture above. I have another thread that suggests that the writer of the five books of the Torah is not Moses but Joshua.

So if God says to Moses, through the writer of this scriptures eyes, that "you will be to him as God", the theory holds true that Moses is acting like a God but not God himself. Which supports the theory you mentioned "that Christ is the active principle of God".

Originally Posted by lilithu

t3gah, you say that you used to be a Jehovah's Witness and that they teach that Jesus is Michael. What was the evidence that they used to support this claim? Is it only that one verse in Thessalonians?

*** Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 2. pages 393-394 ***

Michael

[I forgot. Copyrighted information from the Watchtower Bible & Tract Society is not allowed to be posted on the Internet or through email. So the document that was here has been deleted.]

************************************************** *************

It's uncanny that they anointed remnant, as they call themselves, has nearly identical thoughts of what HelpMe posted from those sources. Which is why I have my "Watchtower Bible & Tract Society" thread. HelpMe has just proved that they are mortal men, the Governing Body. They secretly looked at the documents posted elsewhere and said that they, the Governing Body of Jehovah's Witnesses, figured it out on their own. The Governing Body did decide to use someone elses translation of the Greek scriptures. Sounds like a pattern, no? Hrm....

[HelpMe]

the question mark in the translation of the name michael is assumed.

i came to this conclusion without the use of wtbs study guide / aid and by using trinitarian translations(such as are availible at www.studylight.org / http://www.scripture4all.org/), so i would appreciate if nobody suggests i did.

Originally Posted by lilithu

thanks helpme. the info you provided is awesome. it says that I can't frubal you right now but I won't forget!

no problem, even if you're not 'christian' i appreciate your approaching texts with an open mind to interpretation.

[t3gah]

Originally Posted by No*s

I'm starting a thread on this, so I'm not going to debate it here. I just need to point out that I can date it firmly to 107, making it 1900 years old. I have clear statements in the Didache that require it to make any sense, making it 2000 years old. It can be seen rather easily in the Bible, also pointing towards 2000 years old. As I said, though, I'm starting a thread on this very issue.

On the subject of Jesus being an angel: How many early Christian documents can you cite on this issue? I can think of one group: Eusebius' Ecclesiastical History contains about two sentances on the Ebionites, but I can quickly counter-balance it with Against Heresies, which paints a fairly interesting picture of how groups like that arose. There may be more on the subject, but I think you'll be hard-pressed to find another person/group that says Jesus is an angel. Hebrews 1 blatantly contradicts it by saying that the Son is greater than the angels, and there's a fairly good chance the Ebionites are the group the author of Hebrews was writing against. Even Arius did not teach the Son was an angel.

Are you using the Hebrew calendar and comparing the events to the Gregorian calendar to extrapolate the years you are quoting?

[LittleNipper]

Jesus says he always existed. Angels are created beings. Michael is a specific angel. Michael did and does act on GOD's behalf.

Isaiah 9:6

For us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Might GOD, Everlasting FATHER, Prince of Peace.

I do not see angelic messenger in the discription anywhere. Must be a man made false doctrine.