A title is not a name.

Hello to you all and may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ bless you all.

What I want to talk about here is (titles) and how we can become confused by them.

We find many titles in the Bible given to an assortment of beings. Titles such as God, Angel of the Lord, sons of God, messiah, Christ, satan and so on. These are not personal names but rather they are titles given to indicate the person's function, attitude, authority, role, position, rank and so on.

Sometimes we see these titles in the Bible and begin to form biblically unsound doctrines such as seen in the co-eternal, co-equal trinity God doctrine. For example, when we see the title (GOD) given to Jesus right away we equate Jesus with the one true GOD. We begin to form our belief around the word (GOD) and equate Jesus with being tof the same essence of the Father making Him co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. But we know from huge amount of Scripture evidence that Jesus is not equal with the Father and nor was He immortal as the Father.

We know from Scripture that there are many GODs but there is only one true God, the Father. There is a fallen angel who is given the title GOD but he is not co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. We even have the Scriptures calling natural man, (God) because they brought the word of God to others. Moses was called, God to Pharaoh.

The word (GOD) is a title given to many throughout Scripture but it's when we learn the personal name of these people is where we learn who they truely are.

Proverbs 30:4 Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son's name, if you know?

So with this, Jesus can be called God but not in a co-eternal and co-equal sense. Jesus is called God because His Father has given Him this title to rule with authority and act in His behalf.

Knowing this, let us be biblically sound in our beliefs of the one true God and His Son Jesus Christ.

Let me know your thoughts...

Many blessings,
John

k4c said:

Hello to you all and may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ bless you all.

What I want to talk about here is (titles) and how we can become confused by them.

We find many titles in the Bible given to an assortment of beings. Titles such as God, Angel of the Lord, sons of God, messiah, Christ, satan and so on. These are not personal names but rather they are titles given to indicate the person's function, attitude, authority, role, position, rank and so on.

Sometimes we see these titles in the Bible and begin to form biblically unsound doctrines such as seen in the co-eternal, co-equal trinity God doctrine. For example, when we see the title (GOD) given to Jesus right away we equate Jesus with the one true GOD. We begin to form our belief around the word (GOD) and equate Jesus with being tof the same essence of the Father making Him co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. But we know from huge amount of Scripture evidence that Jesus is not equal with the Father and nor was He immortal as the Father.

We know from Scripture that there are many GODs but there is only one true God, the Father. There is a fallen angel who is given the title GOD but he is not co-eternal and co-equal with the Father. We even have the Scriptures calling natural man, (God) because they brought the word of God to others. Moses was called, God to Pharaoh.

The word (GOD) is a title given to many throughout Scripture but it's when we learn the personal name of these people is where we learn who they truely are.

Proverbs 30:4 Who has ascended into heaven, or descended? Who has gathered the wind in His fists? Who has bound the waters in a garment? Who has established all the ends of the earth? What is His name, and what is His Son's name, if you know?

So with this, Jesus can be called God but not in a co-eternal and co-equal sense. Jesus is called God because His Father has given Him this title to rule with authority and act in His behalf.

Knowing this, let us be biblically sound in our beliefs of the one true God and His Son Jesus Christ.

Let me know your thoughts...

Many blessings,
John

Click to expand...

Well, I'm not a Jehovah's Witness, but I can pretty much accept what you've said here. I don't believe in the Trinity either.

Sounds... okay. You were really rambling though. Your last sentence, "knowing this..." doesn't even follow from the title... I'm not really sure what you're trying to say or what the point is.

Hi Squirt,

I'm not a Jehovah's Witness either but its hard to find nontrinitarin fellowship.

Hi Aqualung,

I'm just trying to get some discussion going and see where the Lord leads.

Oh, okay. Carry on.

Lets take the title Angel of the Lord.

When Trinitarians see the title, Angel of the Lord, right away they equal it with the preexised Jesus. In doing so they become blinded to the vast amount of biblical support of Michael being the Angel of the Lord and Chief messenger of God. For example, we read in the book of Jude where Michael had a dispute with the devil over Moses' body.

Jude 1:9 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.

This dispute between Michael and the devil has been distorted by the Bible translators so that we would miss a huge support to Michael being the Angel of the Lord. How the translators did this is by mistranslating one word and that word is the word (body).

If you look through the entire Bibe you will not find one passage of Scripture that speaks of a distpute between Michael and the devil over Moses' literal body.

The word (body) can and should have been translated (slave) or (servant). With this in mind where do we find a dispute between Michael and the devil over Moses' servant the high priest Joshua. We find it word for word in Zechariah 3:1-4.
Zechariah 3:1-4 And he shewed me Joshua the high priest standing before the Angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right hand to resist him. And the Lord said unto Satan, The Lord rebuke thee, O Satan; even the Lord that hath chosen Jerusalem rebuke thee: is not this a brand plucked out of the fire? Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and stood before the angel. And he answered and spake unto those that stood before him, saying, Take away the filthy garments from him. And unto him he said, Behold, I have caused thine iniquity to pass from thee, and I will clothe thee with change of raiment.

In Jude we have Michael disputing with the devil over Moses’ servant but in Zechariah 3:1-4 we have the Angel of the Lord disputing with Satan over Moses’ servant regarding his righteousness. We can see the same exact words being used in Jude as in Zechariah.

In Jude Michael says to the devil, “The Lord rebuke you.”

In Zechariah the Angel of the Lord says to Satan, “The Lord rebuke you.”

In both these cases we have a dispute over Joshua’s filthy garments and how Joshua was one who was plucked out of the fire.

Now look at Jude 23-25.

Jude 1:23-25 And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen.

Now look at what the Angel of the Lord does with Joshua and his filthy garments. Joshua was a high priest which made him a servant to Moses in the Santcuary services.

Zechariah 3:3-7Now Joshua was clothed with filthy garments, and was standing before the Angel. Then He answered and spoke to those who stood before Him, saying, "Take away the filthy garments from him.'' And to him He said, "See, I have removed your iniquity from you, and I will clothe you with rich robes.'' And I said, "Let them put a clean turban on his head.'' So they put a clean turban on his head, and they put the clothes on him. And the Angel of the Lord stood by. Then the Angel of the Lord admonished Joshua, saying, "Thus says the Lord of hosts: `If you will walk in My ways, and if you will keep My command, then you shall also judge My house, and likewise have charge of My courts; I will give you places to walk among these who stand here.

Michael and the Angel of the Lord are one and the same person in the same way the devil and Satan are one in the same person.

Understanding titles is one way we can cut through the smoke screen to see the truth.

Many blessing,
John

k4c said:

Hi Squirt,

I'm not a Jehovah's Witness either but its hard to find nontrinitarin fellowship.

Click to expand...

You'll find some on this site. I have learned that quite a few people don't accept this doctrine.

I don't how you've come to the conclusion that "trinitarians" believe that Michael and Jesus are one in the same. I've never known a "trinitarian" to believe such.

I wouldn't doubt that Michael is the Angel of the Lord.

Christ isn't an angel. So...to believe Michael is Christ makes no sense to me whatsoever. Christ is over all angels...WE will have higher rank than angels, according to the Bible.

dawny0826 said:

I don't how you've come to the conclusion that "trinitarians" believe that Michael and Jesus are one in the same. I've never known a "trinitarian" to believe such.

I wouldn't doubt that Michael is the Angel of the Lord.

Christ isn't an angel. So...to believe Michael is Christ makes no sense to me whatsoever. Christ is over all angels...WE will have higher rank than angels, according to the Bible.

Click to expand...

Hi dawny,

I didn't say Trinitarians believed Michael and Jesus are one in the same. I said Trinitarian DON'T believe Michael and Jesus are one in the same.

Because of the trinity doctrine and how Trinitarians have come to believe in a co-eternal and co-equal trinity God they have missed so much biblical truth regarding the personal name of God's chief messenger.

All throughout Scripture we find God changing peoples name. Michael is one those who had a name change along with Abraham, Jacob, Paul, Peter and so on.

The name (Jesus) was given to Michael when He came into the world through Mary.

Matthew 1:21 "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.''

Prior to this, Jesus' personal name was Michael with a title of Angel of the Lord.

Trinitarians will say that Jesus couldn't be an angel because te Bible says Jesus has a name superior then angels. If you carefully read the verse which speaks of Jesus' name being better than all the other angels you will find the reason for Jesus name being better then all the other angels was because of His inheritence.

Hebrews 1:4 Having become so much better than the angels, as He has by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

Did you notice how Jesus became better than the other angels and received a name more excellent through His inheritence?

The Scriptures go on to say that when the Father brings Jesus into the world AGAIN now all the other angels are to worship Jesus because of this new name He has inherited.

Hebrews 1:6 But when He again brings the firstborn into the world, He says: "Let all the angels of God worship Him.''

Jesus' firstborn status came not through His birth through Mary but rather through His birth by way of the resurrection.

Acts 13:33 "God has fulfilled this for us their children, in that He has raised up Jesus. As it is also written in the second Psalm: `You are My Son, today I have begotten You.'

Romans 1:4 And declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead.

It was through Jesus resurrection that He became firstborn from the dead in which He has inherited and name above all names as the Son who now sits at the right hand of the Father on High.

These truths are over looked by Trinitarians because of twsited Scripture verses leading to twisted thoughts and doctrines.

Many blessings,
John

k4c said:

If you look through the entire Bibe you will not find one passage of Scripture that speaks of a distpute between Michael and the devil over Moses' literal body.

Click to expand...

That's because Jude is not quoting the OT. There is no mistranslation, body is correct. Jude was actually referring to Jewish oral tradition, not Scripture. He also refers to Enoch, which is not a part of the OT (unless you're Ethiopian Orthodox). He's not the only NT writer to do so either. Paul refers to Jannes and Jambres, names which are found nowhere in the OT but are found in oral tradition. Your attempt to rest the meaning of the passage in Jude into a sola scripturalist, monist interpretation of Scripture is far from convincing.

James

JamesThePersian said:

That's because Jude is not quoting the OT. There is no mistranslation, body is correct. Jude was actually referring to Jewish oral tradition, not Scripture. He also refers to Enoch, which is not a part of the OT (unless you're Ethiopian Orthodox). He's not the only NT writer to do so either. Paul refers to Jannes and Jambres, names which are found nowhere in the OT but are found in oral tradition. Your attempt to rest the meaning of the passage in Jude into a sola scripturalist, monist interpretation of Scripture is far from convincing.

James

Click to expand...

Hi James,

If you compare the the verses in Zechariah and in Jude you will see that they are word for word the same, this is not a coincidence. To deny this truth is to deny sound biblical interpretation.

I agree that the men of God had from time to time quoted the words of other people including pagans and Lucifer himself but this does not mean we use these other sources to interpret the Scriptures.

Many blessings,
John

k4c said:

Hi James,

If you compare the the verses in Zechariah and in Jude you will see that they are word for word the same, this is not a coincidence. To deny this truth is to deny sound biblical interpretation.

I agree that the men of God had from time to time quoted the words of other people including pagans and Lucifer himself but this does not mean we use these other sources to interpret the Scriptures.

Many blessings,
John

Click to expand...

So are you saying that Jude was wrong to use Enoch and Paul was wrong to reference Jewish oral tradition? Do you think, then that you know better than the Apostles? Are we wrong to use anything but the Scriptures? If so, how do you believe the early Church managed to function for 4 centuries without the NT canon? I'm afraid that you'll get no agreement from me on the idea that sola scriptura is correct. It doesn't make sense and its anachronistic to read the idea back onto the early Christians. Neither they nor the Jews lived by Scripture alone. I don't agree with your interpretation of the passage from Jude, it's impossible for the texts of Jude and Zechariah to be word for word the same because they're written in wildly different languages. There may well be a reason why the translations are similar, but that would reflect on nothing more than the motives of the translators. You also leave yourself in a bit of a hole when you say that 'the men of God had from time to time quoted the words of other people including pagans and Lucifer himself but this does not mean we use these other sources to interpret the Scriptures' because the quotations from 'other sources' that you are referring to aren't made just anywhere, but right there in the Scriptures. How then do you know that anything in the Scriptures is inspired by God? Where do you draw the line?

James

k4c said:

The name (Jesus) was given to Michael when He came into the world through Mary.

Matthew 1:21 "And she will bring forth a Son, and you shall call His name Jesus, for He will save His people from their sins.''

Prior to this, Jesus' personal name was Michael with a title of Angel of the Lord.

Click to expand...

I guess I was focusing on what you had to say about the Trinity. I must have missed this part of your post. Like you, I don't believe in the Trinity. But I've got to differ with you on this issue. I don't believe Jesus was known as Michael during His pre-mortal existence?

Are you sure you're not a JW? I'm sure May (whom I believe to be RF's only JW right now) could use another person on her team. Why are you so reticent to come out and say it? I know of no other Christian denomination (yes, I do believe JWs to be Christians) that believes Michael was the pre-mortal Jesus.

Squirt said:

I guess I was focusing on what you had to say about the Trinity. I must have missed this part of your post. Like you, I don't believe in the Trinity. But I've got to differ with you on this issue. I don't believe Jesus was known as Michael during His pre-mortal existence?

Are you sure you're not a JW? I'm sure May (whom I believe to be RF's only JW right now) could use another person on her team. Why are you so reticent to come out and say it? I know of no other Christian denomination (yes, I do believe JWs to be Christians) that believes Michael was the pre-mortal Jesus.

Click to expand...

Hi Squirt,

I'm not sure what you mean when you say this, (whom I believe to be RF's only JW right now).

There are several denomination out there that believe Michael and Jesus are the same. One of them being the Seventh Day Adventist and a few Jewish groups as well as the JW.

Many blessings,
John

JamesThePersian said:

So are you saying that Jude was wrong to use Enoch and Paul was wrong to reference Jewish oral tradition? Do you think, then that you know better than the Apostles? Are we wrong to use anything but the Scriptures? If so, how do you believe the early Church managed to function for 4 centuries without the NT canon? I'm afraid that you'll get no agreement from me on the idea that sola scriptura is correct. It doesn't make sense and its anachronistic to read the idea back onto the early Christians. Neither they nor the Jews lived by Scripture alone. I don't agree with your interpretation of the passage from Jude, it's impossible for the texts of Jude and Zechariah to be word for word the same because they're written in wildly different languages. There may well be a reason why the translations are similar, but that would reflect on nothing more than the motives of the translators. You also leave yourself in a bit of a hole when you say that 'the men of God had from time to time quoted the words of other people including pagans and Lucifer himself but this does not mean we use these other sources to interpret the Scriptures' because the quotations from 'other sources' that you are referring to aren't made just anywhere, but right there in the Scriptures. How then do you know that anything in the Scriptures is inspired by God? Where do you draw the line?

James

Click to expand...

Hi James,

I have no problem referring to quotes from people outside of the cannon of Scripture but when these quotes conflict with clear Scripture truth or when they prevent you from receiveing the clear evidence of truth found in the Scriptures then I have a problem with it.

To reject the clear word for word evidence found in Jude and Zechariah of Michael being the Angel of the Lord because of a book supposibly written by Enoch I feel you may be running into danagerous waters.

I agree that Enoch has been mentioned in some areas of the Bible but I think you may be hard pressed to say Enoch wrote a book that should be part of the Bible.

Many blessings,
John

k4c said:

Hi James,

I have no problem referring to quotes from people outside of the cannon of Scripture but when these quotes conflict with clear Scripture truth or when they prevent you from receiveing the clear evidence of truth found in the Scriptures then I have a problem with it.

To reject the clear word for word evidence found in Jude and Zechariah of Michael being the Angel of the Lord because of a book supposibly written by Enoch I feel you may be running into danagerous waters.

I agree that Enoch has been mentioned in some areas of the Bible but I think you may be hard pressed to say Enoch wrote a book that should be part of the Bible.

Many blessings,
John

Click to expand...

The quote from Jude comes from oral tradition, not Enoch. The Enoch reference is another part of Jude that I brought up for illustration only. I don't believe that Enoch wrote the Book of Enoch but rather that it is just a name. In other words it's pseudepigraphical. I don't include it in my Bible, despite the fact that mine almost certainly has more OT books than yours does, but the Ethiopians have no trouble including it in theirs. What is or is not Scripture is a lot less clear cut than you seem to think. You seem to have overlooked my point that there cannot possibly be a word for word correspondence between the originals of Jude and Zechariah. Such is only possible in translations of them as both books are written in different languages from completely different linguistic families.

James

JamesThePersian said:

The quote from Jude comes from oral tradition, not Enoch. The Enoch reference is another part of Jude that I brought up for illustration only. I don't believe that Enoch wrote the Book of Enoch but rather that it is just a name. In other words it's pseudepigraphical. I don't include it in my Bible, despite the fact that mine almost certainly has more OT books than yours does, but the Ethiopians have no trouble including it in theirs. What is or is not Scripture is a lot less clear cut than you seem to think. You seem to have overlooked my point that there cannot possibly be a word for word correspondence between the originals of Jude and Zechariah. Such is only possible in translations of them as both books are written in different languages from completely different linguistic families.

James

Click to expand...

Hi James,

Of course it's not word for word but you can find the same words being used in both books and the same thought which indicates they are referring to the same incident. We find many OT incidents being referred to in the NT just like when God says, regarding His Son, "Today I have begotten you" we find in the NT God was referring to the resurrection of Jesus. When you compare the NT with the OT you find the same words, "Today I have begotten you". I think you are trying to avoid a clear truth not because its not biblically true but rather it does not fit your beliefs.

By the way, are you a LDS?

Many blessings,
John

John,

Though I believe there are instances in the OT where Christ is mentioned (even as the Angel of the Lord) I must disagree with you stating the Michael is Christ and even that Michael is the Angel of the Lord based upon your comparison of Jude and Zechariah. I agree with James on all that he has posted regarding these two books.
A question i would like to ask, if Christ was indeed Michael as you say how do explain Matt 2:13 where the angel of the lord appeared to Joseph when Christ was already born?

Harvs

Harvster said:

John,

Though I believe there are instances in the OT where Christ is mentioned (even as the Angel of the Lord) I must disagree with you stating the Michael is Christ and even that Michael is the Angel of the Lord based upon your comparison of Jude and Zechariah. I agree with James on all that he has posted regarding these two books.
A question i would like to ask, if Christ was indeed Michael as you say how do explain Matt 2:13 where the angel of the lord appeared to Joseph when Christ was already born?

Harvs

Click to expand...

Hi Harvster,

The name (angel of the Lord) is a title, not a personal name. There are many angels of the Lord throughout the Bible. But there is one angel of the Lord who can be seen as a very special angel.

This one particular angel has His Father's name in Him and speaks for His Father. This angel has also been given authority to forgive sin.

Exodus 23:20-22 Behold, I send an Angel before thee, to keep thee in the way, and to bring thee into the place which I have prepared. Beware of him, and obey his voice, provoke him not; for he will not pardon your transgressions: for My name is in him. But if thou shalt indeed obey his voice, and do all that I speak; then I will be an enemy unto thine enemies, and an adversary unto thine adversaries.

We can see this one Angel as a very special cheif messenger of God, in other words, this angel represents the one true invisible God in a special way.

As you begin to read about this specail angel throughout the OT you will find His work is directly related to the Father in protecting and saving God's people. This angel is known as, the Angel of God's presence as one being very close to the Father. You might say from the Father's bosom.

Isaiah 63:9 In all their affliction He was afflicted, and the Angel of His Presence saved them; in His love and in His pity He redeemed them; and He bore them and carried them all the days of old.

This one very special angel is called wonderful.

Judges 13:18 And the Angel of the Lord said to him, "Why do you ask My name, seeing it is wonderful?''

There is a prophecy in Isaiah which speaks of a time that was to come when a son would be born and His name shall be called Wonderful.

Isaiah 9:6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, the everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Michael is a Son of God and chief messenger of God (archangel). This Son of God and chief messenger is the Son that was sent from heaven to take on sinful flesh.

Romans 8:3 For what the law could not do in that it was weak through the flesh, God did by sending His own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, on account of sin: He condemned sin in the flesh.

Angels are called sons of God. They are also called morning stars.

Job 38:6-7 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof; When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

What we see in Jesus is a new creation and new man. Jesus was both a flesh and blood man from the seed of David and He was also the bright and Morning Star from the angelic host.

Revelation 22:16 "I, Jesus, have sent My angel to testify to you these things in the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, the Bright and Morning Star.''

There is still so much biblical truth to support Jesus and Michael as being one and the same. We have to open our eyes to these things for a believe Satan has blinded most of the world to the true identity of the Christ, the Holy one of God.

Many blessings,
John