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

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

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.

Hi Scott, namaste.

I think it's perfectly valid to hold church tradition as authority, as the Orthodox and Catholics do. Thus, I understand and accept that No*s' argument is compelling for an Orthodox or Catholic christian. But my point is that not all Christians share this view, and in a discussion/debate between christians of different stripes, one can't expect a Protestant to accept that argument with the same authority. -lilith

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by lilithu

But my point is that not all Christians share this view, and in a discussion/debate between christians of different stripes, one can't expect a Protestant to accept that argument with the same authority. -lilith

Very true, my friend..... but that does not make the argument any less valid.

As you can read in HelpMe's post....

Originally Posted by HelpMe

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

I just can't help but read this and groan..... these "sinful men" created the canon of Scripture that he reads and uses as "proof" of his argument. Circular to the max! I just don't know why it's not so obvious to everyone.

Oh well. Nice chatting with you lilithu.
Scott

[Scuba Pete]

Scott,

we've been around this mulberry bush before.

The non-catholic Christians, thank you for you time and effort and remind you that God could have as easily used gnostics or even invisible pagan clerics wearing pink robes if he so desired. He might have stooped so low as to use me were I around back then! After all, he has used an *** before!

[Scott1]

Originally Posted by NetDoc

we've been around this mulberry bush before.

Great...now I'm going to be humming that song for a week.

The non-catholic Christians, thank you for you time and effort and remind you that God could have as easily used gnostics or even invisible pagan clerics wearing pink robes if he so desired.

My friend.... your humorous suggested possiblities aside.... I understand that this is hard to understand.... but I am shocked to hear you suggest this.

If Mary had not said "yes".... God would have just chosen another.....

If the Apostles said no to Jesus... he would have just chosen others....

If the people refused to have him crucified, God would have just thought something else up....

If the Apostles did not spread the Good News of the Risen Lord, He would have just found others....

Jesus was not really that special.....God could have easily used another to save us.

See what I'm getting at....? Don't doubt the will of God in this matter my friend.... the Bible did not happen by some "divine accident"... it was formed by holy men of a holy faith.... a faith that remains to this day.

Peace,
Scott

[No*s]

Originally Posted by t3gah

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

I'm using the Gregorian calendar, our standard calander. It would be overwhelmingly confusing otherwise.

However, we always have access to Gregorian, Hebrew, Julian, and whatever the calander that the Julian modified was for sheer calander chaos .

[Scuba Pete]

Dear Scott...

My point was NOT that God was not in control, but in FULL control. He chose and sanctified whom he chose. But he did not do this to create another "royal lineage" as he did with the Jews. He worked through IMPERFECT men to show his strength and to Glorify himself in spite of his messengers.

[No*s]

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.

This is quite true, though we are always quick to point out where the Bible comes from .

What lends the argument weight, though, is the way the Early Church portrayed its origins. If its portrayel of Apostolic Succession is accurate (and the way they work it from I Clement (I take the 70 date over the 90) all the way on, it would appear to have historical truth behind it. If this is so, then the consensus and teachers I quote are quite potent. At the very least, they do clearly demonstrate that Trinitarian thought was present in the first and second centuries, which is what Helpme had asked me to demonstrate.

Originally Posted by lilithu

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?

No, I don't believe that it can be. For instance in vv. 1.8-9, we have the famous passage, "Your throne, O God, is forever and ever...Therefore God, Your God, has annointed You..." which is very difficult to take as some honorific deity. Following it, is a similar statement "You, Lord, in the beginning laid the foundation of the earth..." and so on. In the Old Testament, this refers to the LORD (I'm avoiding the Tetragrammaton, not shouting). However, in contrast to this, the author of hebrews argues that the angels must worship him and that they are ministers made a flame of fire. He's not talking about a difference in deeds, but a difference in stature in the context.

[No*s]

Originally Posted by SOGFPP

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

Oh, you got it quite right. I, personally, think Thomas was being very blunt .