sojourner
Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
It is if you don’t understand the theology it contains.You are correct. Bible is extremely lacking in terms of spiritual and theological content.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
It is if you don’t understand the theology it contains.You are correct. Bible is extremely lacking in terms of spiritual and theological content.
I’m not sure I agree that it “helps.” I suppose if the study is done incorrectly, maybe.I don't know of any atheist that became one only due to studying the Bible, but it does help.
Or perhaps the other way around.It is if you don’t understand the theology it contains.
Where does it say that?His name was Michael.
And that?Everything thereafter was created by Jehovah through Michael as master worker.
I agree, but for a very different reason than yoursWhat a remarkable work the Bible is!
OK - thanks.Pretty much.
It doesn't. You have to figure that out yourself. Let me show you how.
The Hebrew word for angel is malakh, the Greek aggelos. Both literally mean "messenger." When referring to human messengers the text is translated as "messenger" but when referring to spirit creatures the text is translated as "angel." (Genesis 16:7 / Genesis 32:3 / James 2:25 / Revelation 22:8)
There are only two angels named in the Bible. Michael and Gabriel. There is only one called the archangel. Always singular. That is Michael. (Jude 1:9 / Daniel 10:13-21 / Daniel 12:1 / Luke 1:20)
1. Jesus existed in heaven before he came to earth. Proverbs 8:22 / John 1:1-3, John 1:14; John 3:13; John 8:23, 58; John 17:5 / Colossians 1:15-17 / 1 John 2:13 / Revelation 3:14 all speak of Jesus’ existence before the world began, in fact before anything was created Jesus was created. Before Heaven, the heavens, the Earth, and of course, man. He is the firstborn of creation, the beginning of creation, he came from somewhere other than this world, he descended from heaven. There can be no doubt that he had a pre-human existence in heaven before he came to Earth as the man Jesus Christ.
2. Jesus’ position in heaven before he came to the earth must have been an important one, considering he was the first of Jehovah’s creation and all things were created through him and for him. (Proverbs 8:22 / John 1:3) That means not only the heavens and earth as we know them but the angels and heaven as well. Jesus is referred to as the "word of God," this means he is the spokesperson. (John 1:1) As the spokesperson for Jehovah God we can assume that when an angel performed some important task on earth, like guiding and protecting the early Israelites from Egypt or taking the physical form of men in performing an important task, it was likely Michael as he existed before he came to earth as Jesus.
3. The term archangel means chief of the angels. Arch means chief or principal. The term is only applied to one angel in the Bible. Michael. It is always used in the singular. There is only one archangel. The term archangel itself only appears twice throughout Scripture. At 1 Thessalonians 4:16 Paul writes of Jesus as having the voice of the archangel, and Jude 9 indicates Michael disputed with Satan over the body of Moses. So there is a connection with Jesus as well as an indication that Michael was connected in some way with the people of the exodus of Egypt.
4. Other than Jehovah God himself only two people in the Bible are said to be in charge of or over the angels. They are Michael and Jesus Christ. The name Michael appears only five times throughout Scripture. At Daniel 10:13, 21; 12:1 / Jude 9 and Revelation 12:7.
5. Are there any others who believe Michael and Jesus are the same? Yes, there are many. Joseph Benson, E. W. Hengstenberg, J. P. Lange, Butterworth, Cruden, Taylor, Guyse all wrote that Michael and Jesus were the same.
Clarke's Commentary (Adam Clarke) - "Let it be observed that the word archangel is never found in the plural number in the sacred writings. There can be properly only one archangel, one chief or head of all the angelic host .... Michael is this archangel, and head of all the angelic orders .... hence by this personage, in the Apocalypse, many understand the Lord Jesus."
W. E. Vine - the "voice of the archangel" (1 Thessalonians 4:16) is apparently "the voice of the Lord Jesus Christ" - An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, p. 64.
The 1599 Geneva Study Bible: Christ is the Prince of angels and head of the Church, who bears that iron rod."
The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia: - "The earlier Protestant scholars usually identified Michael with the preincarnate Christ, finding support for their view, not only in the juxtaposition of the "child" and the archangel in Rev. 12, but also in the attributes ascribed to him in Daniel" – vol. 3, p. 2048, Eerdmans Publishing, 1984 printing.
John Calvin: "I embrace the opinion of those who refer this to the person of Christ, because it suits the subject best to represent him as standing forward for the defense of his elect people." - J. Calvin, Commentaries On The Book Of The Prophet Daniel, trans. T. Myers (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1979), vol. 2 p. 369.
Brown's Dictionary of the Bible - on 'Michael' and 'Angel,' both these words do sometimes refer to Christ; and also affirms that Christ is the Archangel.
The NIV Study Bible - "The Angel of the LORD .... Traditional Christian interpretation has held that this 'angel' was a preincarnate manifestation of Christ as God's Messenger-Servant. It may be ..., the angel could speak on behalf of the One who sent him." - footnote for Gen. 16:7. Zondervan Publishing, 1985
Smith's Bible Dictionary (says of Michael) - "Angel of the Lord. ... Christ's visible form before the incarnation. p. 40"
Today's Dictionary of the Bible - "Angel of the Lord [angel of Jehovah] - occurs many times in the Old Testament, where in almost every instance it means a supernatural personage to be distinguished from Jehovah .... Some feel the pre-incarnate Christ is meant." Bethany House Publ., 1982, p. 39.
Colossians 1:15-17 John 17 :5
Well, cool. What's your reason.
It certainly is interesting how we interpret but our perceptions of ourself and the world around us deeply influences those interpretations.
I read an article last year in scientific American. It was a whole issue dedicated to the Brin and the cosmos. It opened by stating "the two deepest mysteries in science today is the human brain and the cosmos" .. Paraphrased "the two things we understand the least today in science is ourselves and the world around us"
I would say inadvertently accurate. I would also say that in ancient times nature was seen differently and we understood ourselves better. I mean way way back. Today it's generally all super intellectualizing in context to inferior emotions. Or so it's believed by Freudians.. I am jungian he is way whackier. In an accedemic sense.
You should be responding to @Segev Moran and not @shunyadragon.
I study the Bible and the other religious scriptures to understand their cultural perspective on the belief in God(s) and the relationship with creation and humanity.
I do not believe that the Bible 'gives us insight on what was going on before the Earth itself was created.' It provides a perspective of what some cultures in the Middle East believed thousands of years ago on the origins of the universe, earth, life and humanity. It is in no way factual based on objective verifiable evidence.
I assume you believe the story of Genesis is true?It doesn't. You have to figure that out yourself. Let me show you how.
I find it one of the most complex and philosophical books i have ever red.Well, cool. What's your reason.
Most of them have little to nothing to say about Gods. Primarily the Abrahamic religions do. Hinduism and Scientology leave it to the individual to decide. Shintoism's deities are more aptly called spirits, though in effect they are gods.
Objective verifiable evidence is subject to the same corruption as anything else.
I assume you believe the story of Genesis is true?
It says literally (And the number on rule of the Tora is that each word must be (also) true in its literal sense) that god itself created and manipulated its creation.
It is said it created it, and than it is said it manipulated it by using its own words.
wouldn't you agree that if an angle was the one doing the job it would say "And god told Michael, create the earth"?
I find it one of the most complex and philosophical books i have ever read.
the idea that is is written without punctuation or scoring is very unique.
The concept of Gimatrya is smart and intriguing.
if you read the stories and literally study the actual meaning of the words, i think the bible presents in a way the basics for many modern concepts of society, politics, laws, philosophy and many more issues.
I find the amount of thought put into the interpretation of the bible is "ungraspable".
There are many more things, and these days i study it in depth and the more i study the more intrigued i become (not in a religious manner).
There are of course more religions than above. I believe in Hinduism there is the belief in some sort of God (such as Brahman), Scientology is questionable as a religion, and more like a philosophy.
Disagree, objective evidence remains neutral, but may be misused. There are checks and balances in the sciences, and airplanes fly and computers work and the different sciences have consistency over time, because of repetitive research and peer review, You need to clarify this awkward view.
Brahma and Brahman are NOT the same. Brahman, to use an analogy from Christianity, is the fundamental ground of Being. Brahma is the creative aspect of Brahman that is conceived in a personal form.In Hinduism Brahma was a creator, but was born of another deity. He is pretty insignificant in Hinduism, yet Brahman is very popular, a metaphysical concept of an ultimate reality.
I'm only being realistic. If an airplane is going to fly and a computer is going to work objective evidence has little to do with it. I once watched one of the world's most respected ichthyologists in the Amazon explain that a fish had a bump on it's head so it could crack open the nuts that fell in the river. It evolved this bump. It couldn't have been that the fish could crack the nuts because it had the bump, because that wouldn't mean evolution, i.e. funding.
He was there to study the primitive people's because they knew a great deal about the fish.
Now you tell me, which of the two, the primitives or the ichthyologist had objective evidence?
I wonder how many millions of people have been wrongly imprisoned on objective evidence? Fingerprints, the lie detector, forensics, DNA . . . and how come you science minded skeptics never have anything bad to say about science? Only how wonderful it is. Never thermonuclear, chemical, biological warfare, just space travel, dinosaurs, and cell phones. The cool stuff.
yes, because is not a man with hands. that is how everything offsprings from god, like eve from adam.Yes. It is to bring forth from himself — not to create out in front of himself with his hands.
No. You’re twisting the definition. People create art. They don’t give birth to it. People beget children. They don’t create them. The two are not interchangeable.yes, because is not a man with hands. that is how everything offsprings from god, like eve from adam.
Brahma and Brahman are NOT the same. Brahman, to use an analogy from Christianity, is the fundamental ground of Being. Brahma is the creative aspect of Brahman that is conceived in a personal form.
You believe Moses wrote the entire first five books. When do you believe he wrote it?I didn't say that they were the same.
You believe Moses wrote the entire first five books. When do you believe he wrote it?
How then do you explain the fact that the Joseph story clearly alludes to a flourishing trade with Arabia via camel caravans that has been archaeologically and textually dated to the period of Assyrian empire?Yes, I do. And he wrote those from 1513 - 1473 B.C.E.