A title is not a name.

[Harvster]

John,

Don't get me wrong I completely believe that the Angel of the Lord in the OT is Christ and most of the Scriptures you quoted show this, but to say that He is Michael based on a comparison of 1 scripture in the NT and 1 scripture in the OT is asking a bit much wouldn't you say.

 

[may]

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

Hi, as you have posted on the JW thread i feel that it would be good to get JW thoughts on this verse in proverbs 30;4
This verse makes it evident how limited man is compared to the Most High. Its rhetorical questions could be asked about any man, but these questions should lead a reasoning person to the Creator. and i would just like to point out that JW do not teach that Jesus can be called God , yes Jesus has been given aurthority but never do the scriptures teach us that Jesus can be called God . i thought i would mention that incase others are misled to believe that JW teach this . yes Jesus is god-like but his power comes from JEHOVAH

 

[k4c]

John,

Don't get me wrong I completely believe that the Angel of the Lord in the OT is Christ and most of the Scriptures you quoted show this, but to say that He is Michael based on a comparison of 1 scripture in the NT and 1 scripture in the OT is asking a bit much wouldn't you say.

Hi Harvster,

There is much more biblical proof of Michael and Jesus being one and the same. We have only just begun to scratch the surface.

We truly have to have ears to hear and eyes to see as we allow the Scriptures to speak for themselves.

Michael, who is the Son of God and Bright and Morning Star, was lower from His angelic glory with the Father to became flesh and blood. He took on mortality for the purpose of tasting death for everyone.

Hebrews 2:9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

Michael is Jesus as a mortal human being.

Becasue of Jesus' glorification to the right hand of the Father on Hign He has been given the power of life just as His Father has. Jesus was given the power and authority by His Father to call up the death with His voice.

John 5:21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead, and quickeneth them; even so the Son quickeneth whom he will.

John 5:24-29 Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself; And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man. Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

Now whos voice is heard coming from Jesus?

Whos voice calls up the dead?

1 Th 4:16 For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first.

These above verses are discribing a future event when Michael comes in His glory as the Son of Man (Jesus Christ) to raise the dead and judge evey man according to his works. Those who are written in the book of life will shine like the stars while all the others will face condemnation.

Now lets turn to a prophecy in the OT which speaks clearly of this event and see who brings this glorious resurrection to completion.

Daniel 12:1-3 And at that time shall Michael stand up, the great prince which standeth for the children of thy people: and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even to that same time: and at that time thy people shall be delivered, every one that shall be found written in the book. And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt. And they that be wise shall shine as the brightness of the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars for ever and ever.

There is still much more but I'll stop hear.

These is only one Son who has ever come down from heaven to take on sinful flesh and that Son is Michael. No other Son in all creation could fit or qualify for this position.

John 3:13 No one has ascended to heaven but He who came down from heaven, that is, the Son of Man who is in heaven.

Many blessings,
John

 

[k4c]

Hi, as you have posted on the JW thread i feel that it would be good to get JW thoughts on this verse in proverbs 30;4
This verse makes it evident how limited man is compared to the Most High. Its rhetorical questions could be asked about any man, but these questions should lead a reasoning person to the Creator. and i would just like to point out that JW do not teach that Jesus can be called God , yes Jesus has been given aurthority but never do the scriptures teach us that Jesus can be called God . i thought i would mention that incase others are misled to believe that JW teach this . yes Jesus is god-like but his power comes from JEHOVAH

The word (GOD) is not a personal name for any particular person. It's a title that has been given to many people as well as angels. This title represents their position of authority. Many people all throughout the Scriptures have been given this title.

1 Cor. 8:5 For though there are that are called gods, whether in heaven or upon earth, as there are gods many, and lords many.

Being there are many God's and many Lords, the Scriptures make a distiction by saying even though there are many Gods and many Lords there is only one true God, the Father and one true Lord, Jesus the Chirst.

1 Cor. 8:6 Yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

When we come to the personel name of the Father such as, The Most High God, the One True God and the Anctient of Days we see no other people or angle carrying these names or titles.

Many blessings,
John

 

[may]

Christ is over all angels...

i agree that christ has been put over all angels , and he has got rid of the rebellious angels, this is one of the first things that Jesus did when he was made king of the heavenly kingdom goverment in 1914
And war broke out in heaven: Mi´cha·el

Meaning "Who Is Like God?" Gr., Mi·kha·el´.

and his angels battled with the dragon, and the dragon and its angels battled 8 but it did not prevail, neither was a place found for them any longer in heaven. 9 So down the great dragon:devil: was hurled, the original serpent, the one called Devil and Satan, who is misleading the entire inhabited earth; he was hurled down to the earth, and his angels were hurled down with him. REVELATION 12 ;9 jesus did not want rebellious angels working with him in the kingdom so he kicked them out.

 

[may]

The word (GOD) is not a personal name for any particular person. It's a title that has been given to many people as well as angels. This title represents their position of authority. Many people all throughout the Scriptures have been given this title.

1 Cor. 8:5 For though there are that are called gods, whether in heaven or upon earth, as there are gods many, and lords many.

Being there are many God's and many Lords, the Scriptures make a distiction by saying even though there are many Gods and many Lords there is only one true God, the Father and one true Lord, Jesus the Chirst.

1 Cor. 8:6 Yet for us there is one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we for Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, through whom are all things, and through whom we live.

When we come to the personel name of the Father such as, The Most High God, the One True God and the Anctient of Days we see no other people or angle carrying these names or titles.

Many blessings,
John

Yes i do agree that there are many that call them selves Gods and yes as you say noone is the most high that is only Jehovah...........but as you stated in your first post , you made it seem that it was ok to call Jesus God . and as you posted this in JW thread it would not be inline with what JW teach

 

[sushannah]

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

What jewish groups?

 

[k4c]

What jewish groups?

Hi Sushannah,

I can't think of their names right now because I'm not at my laptop but if you check websites such as messiah.com, or yeshuah.com, or yeshuahnet.com you will begin finding Jewish based faiths that teach Jesus and Michael as one and the same.

Many blessings,
John

 

[James the Persian]

By the way, are you a LDS?

No. What on earth gave you the idea that I'm a Mormon? If you actually look to the top of my posts you will see my religion clearly stated. I am an Orthodox Christian, specifically a member of the Romanian Orthodox Church. I'm also somewhat puzzled as to how the contents of my posts could possibly lead you to suppose I might be Mormon. To the best of my knowledge they use exactly the same Bible as the Protestant churches (so likely the exact same one you do). The churches that have larger OT canons (as I clearly stated ours does) are the Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church. If you'd suspected me of being RC I might have understood, but Mormon?

James

 

[k4c]

No. What on earth gave you the idea that I'm a Mormon? If you actually look to the top of my posts you will see my religion clearly stated. I am an Orthodox Christian, specifically a member of the Romanian Orthodox Church. I'm also somewhat puzzled as to how the contents of my posts could possibly lead you to suppose I might be Mormon. To the best of my knowledge they use exactly the same Bible as the Protestant churches (so likely the exact same one you do). The churches that have larger OT canons (as I clearly stated ours does) are the Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church and the Oriental Orthodox Church. If you'd suspected me of being RC I might have understood, but Mormon?

James

Hi James,

Thee reason why I asked if your were a LDS is because of your use of quotes outside of the cannon of Scripture to for doctrines.

After I sent my question to you I notice I was able to view your faith logo on the top so just disreagrd my question.

Do you think God had His hand in the cannonizing of the Scriptures or do you think we are still open to allow quotes from people outside of the Bible to form our doctrines?

What if I began quoting a local pastor and using his teachings to make the Bible say what he wants it to say even when we don't see the cannon of Scripture supprting his teachings?

Do we allow for this as seekers of truth?

Many blessings,
John

 

[James the Persian]

Hi James,

Thee reason why I asked if your were a LDS is because of your use of quotes outside of the cannon of Scripture to for doctrines.

After I sent my question to you I notice I was able to view your faith logo on the top so just disreagrd my question.

Do you think God had His hand in the cannonizing of the Scriptures or do you think we are still open to allow quotes from people outside of the Bible to form our doctrines?

What if I began quoting a local pastor and using his teachings to make the Bible say what he wants it to say even when we don't see the cannon of Scripture supprting his teachings?

Do we allow for this as seekers of truth?

Many blessings,
John

I don't believe that I used any quotes from outside of Scripture and I certainly wasn't forming any doctrines. All I did was point out that the authors of Scripture used non-Scriptural sources. Yes, I think that God had a hand in the Scriptural canon, because it was the Church that He promised to guide that created the canon. That canon was longer than the one currently used by most Protestants, however.

We can, however, use extra-Scriptural material because as I have already said we are not sola scripturalists. We can profitably refer to early documents of the Church such as the Didache, for instance, or the writings of Church Fathers. If, however, anything believed or taught by any of them contradicts Scripture or Holy Tradition, it is discarded. For this reason Bl. Augustine of Hippo's teachings are pretty much ignored in the east. No one man can change doctrine (so your local pastor idea is an impossibility) because we hold to the principles of the Vincentian Canon, that which was believed always, everywhere and by all.

James

 

[may]

H

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

I have let you know my thoughts from the beliefs of a JW , but you do not seem to be answering me, i wonder why that is, as this is a JW thread? i have been a baptized JW for many years and NEVER do the faithful and discreet slave class , who Jesus is directing ,to feedthe domestics food at the proper time (matthew 24;45-47) . not once have this slave class told us that it is ok to callJesus GOD .so i can see what you are saying that he has great aurthority ,all JW know that , and yes Isaiah tells us that he is a mighty God
Or, "Mighty Divine One." Heb., ’El Gib·bohr´ (not ’El Shad·dai´ as in Ge 17:1, where see ftn); Sy, "Mighty God of times indefinite"; Lat., De´us for´tis

For there has been a child born to us, there has been a son given to us; and the princely rule will come to be upon his shoulder. And his name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace ........isaiah 9;6- so it would be wrong to imply as you have in your post ,that it would be ok to call Jesus GOD as it wouldnt , just thought i would set that straight .There is only one true Almighty God and that is Jehovah he is the most high, and the Almighty one . psalm 83 ;18 tells us he is the most high

That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah,You alone are the most High over all the earth............... so Jehovah is the Almighty one, not Jesus ,there is a difference between Almighty and mighty , so you saying it is ok to call Jesus God is not right ,as it leaves Jehovah out of the picture , and we would not want to do that would we? saying that maybe i have completely missed your point, and you did not mean it that way , if so i am not sure why you are not informing me of that?






​

 

[k4c]

I don't believe that I used any quotes from outside of Scripture and I certainly wasn't forming any doctrines. All I did was point out that the authors of Scripture used non-Scriptural sources. Yes, I think that God had a hand in the Scriptural canon, because it was the Church that He promised to guide that created the canon. That canon was longer than the one currently used by most Protestants, however.

We can, however, use extra-Scriptural material because as I have already said we are not sola scripturalists. We can profitably refer to early documents of the Church such as the Didache, for instance, or the writings of Church Fathers. If, however, anything believed or taught by any of them contradicts Scripture or Holy Tradition, it is discarded. For this reason Bl. Augustine of Hippo's teachings are pretty much ignored in the east. No one man can change doctrine (so your local pastor idea is an impossibility) because we hold to the principles of the Vincentian Canon, that which was believed always, everywhere and by all.

James

The only church fathers we turn to are those of the Scripture such as Abraham, Moses, Paul, John and so on. We don't look to Hippopotamus of Dork nor do we look to Pope John or Ellen G. White.

The Scriptures themselves interpret themselves otherwise where do we draw the line in who we listen to. You say your people have the truth while others say their people have the truth while others say Ellen G. White is the new convenant prophet for the church today.

Stick to sola scripturalists for all truth allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves through the direction of the Spirit of Christ.

Many blessings,
John

 

[James the Persian]

The only church fathers we turn to are those of the Scripture such as Abraham, Moses, Paul, John and so on. We don't look to Hippopotamus of Dork nor do we look to Pope John or Ellen G. White.

The Scriptures themselves interpret themselves otherwise where do we draw the line in who we listen to. You say your people have the truth while others say their people have the truth while others say Ellen G. White is the new convenant prophet for the church today.

Stick to sola scripturalists for all truth allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves through the direction of the Spirit of Christ.

Many blessings,
John

You seem to be labouring under two misapprehensions, firstly that when I talk of such things as the Church Fathers I am talking of individuals and secondly that sola scriptura is even possible. On the first point, it is the concensus of the Church (the pillar and ground of the Truth) not the opinion of one Father, as I attempted to show you by pointing out that we do not accept Augustine's teachings for he contradicts the concensus. You appear not to understand the point. On the scond point, it is impossible to approach any text, whether Scripture or Shakespeare, without some external tradition to guide you. No text exists in a vacuum, the only question is whether your tradition is of God or man. Sola scriptura is itself a tradition and a very recent one in Church history given that it's completely unheard of prior to the Reformation and it's apparent that it was not held to at all by the early Church. I'd argue that this late appearance of the tradition is good evidence that it is a tradition of men, which is ironic given the reason the approach was invented in the first place.

James

 

[k4c]

You seem to be labouring under two misapprehensions, firstly that when I talk of such things as the Church Fathers I am talking of individuals and secondly that sola scriptura is even possible. On the first point, it is the concensus of the Church (the pillar and ground of the Truth) not the opinion of one Father, as I attempted to show you by pointing out that we do not accept Augustine's teachings for he contradicts the concensus. You appear not to understand the point. On the scond point, it is impossible to approach any text, whether Scripture or Shakespeare, without some external tradition to guide you. No text exists in a vacuum, the only question is whether your tradition is of God or man. Sola scriptura is itself a tradition and a very recent one in Church history given that it's completely unheard of prior to the Reformation and it's apparent that it was not held to at all by the early Church. I'd argue that this late appearance of the tradition is good evidence that it is a tradition of men, which is ironic given the reason the approach was invented in the first place.

James

Hi James,

I'll stick to the Scriptures themselves for they interpret themselves very nicely. God did a very nice job in bringing them all together for us. We also have the Spirit to guide and direct our studies.

1 Cr 2:10 But God hath revealed them unto us by his Spirit: for the Spirit searcheth all things, yea, the deep things of God.

John 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.

1 Cr 2:3 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.

2 Tim 3:16-17 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and [is] profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

We need not go any further than the Scriptures for instruction in righteousness and all truth.

Many blessings,
John

 

[sushannah]

Hi Sushannah,

I can't think of their names right now because I'm not at my laptop but if you check websites such as messiah.com, or yeshuah.com, or yeshuahnet.com you will begin finding Jewish based faiths that teach Jesus and Michael as one and the same.

Many blessings,
John

Jews don't believe in Jesus at all. They don't believe he was Michael, they don't believe he was the Messiah, and many don't believe he ever existed at all. Groups that believe these things are not Jewish based faith, but Christian based faith.

 

[k4c]

Jews don't believe in Jesus at all. They don't believe he was Michael, they don't believe he was the Messiah, and many don't believe he ever existed at all. Groups that believe these things are not Jewish based faith, but Christian based faith.

Hi sushannah,

There are Jewish people with a Jewsi faith who believe Jesus is the Christ they're called Messianic Jews.

Many blessings,
John

 

[sushannah]

Hi sushannah,

There are Jewish people with a Jewsi faith who believe Jesus is the Christ they're called Messianic Jews.

Many blessings,
John

There is no such thing as a Messianic Jew who believes that Jesus is their savior. That person has become a Christian. Many who call themselves Messianic jews main objective is to convert Jewish people to Christianity. If someone wants to be a Christian that's okay, but they should leave the Jewish people alone.

 

[may]

The only church fathers we turn to are those of the Scripture such as Abraham, Moses, Paul, John and so on. We don't look to Hippopotamus of Dork nor do we look to Pope John or Ellen G. White.

The Scriptures themselves interpret themselves otherwise where do we draw the line in who we listen to. You say your people have the truth while others say their people have the truth while others say Ellen G. White is the new convenant prophet for the church today.

Stick to sola scripturalists for all truth allowing the Scriptures to speak for themselves through the direction of the Spirit of Christ.

Many blessings,
John

"Who really is the faithful and discreet slave whom his master appointed over his domestics, to give them their food at the proper time? Happy is that slave if his master on arriving finds him doing so. Truly I say to YOU, He will appoint him over all his belongings matthew 24; -45-47 if we stick to the channel that Jesus is using in these last days we cant go wrong . Jesus has appointed that slave over all his belongings and that slave is very happy

(Matthew 25:21) His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful slave! You were faithful over a few things. I will appoint you over many things. Enter into the joy of your master.’​

(Luke 12:44) I tell YOU truthfully, He will appoint him over all his belongings.

(1 Corinthians 4:2) Besides, in this case, what is looked for in stewards is for a man to be found faithful.
And the Lord said: "Who really is the faithful steward, the discreet one, whom his master will appoint over his body of attendants to keep giving them their measure of food supplies at the proper time? luke 12;42 yes JW are full of good spiritual food that Jesus is giving us through the faithful slaves and anyone who wants to know the correct thoughts of JW will go to that channel as it is the only one that Jesus is working through in these last days

 

[k4c]

There is no such thing as a Messianic Jew who believes that Jesus is their savior. That person has become a Christian. Many who call themselves Messianic jews main objective is to convert Jewish people to Christianity. If someone wants to be a Christian that's okay, but they should leave the Jewish people alone.

Hi sushannah,

The name (Christian) is a nick name that was first given to those who follow Jesus at Antioch. It's not a doctrinal name one needs to have to be a follower of Jesus. Messianic Jews is just as good as the name Christian.

Many blessings,
John