How would you dispute this? - General Discussion - Third Millennium Discussion Groups - Third Millennium Ministries Discussion Forums - Message Board - Yuku

RSS
Email

0 Kudo

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Author	Comment
earl40	How would you dispute this?		Lead	[-]
Posts: 16 07/17/08 12:54:28	Tags : None As you can readily see, the voice of the Son of God of John 5:25-29 which raises the dead has to be the same voice as the archangel of 1 Thessalonians 4:16, if it is the voice of the archangel that effectively raises the dead. The two voices described in the two texts have to be identical and hence from the same Person. Earl,A man married to a girl named Tina.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Perisseuo	I don't see how	#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 271 07/17/08 13:12:57	Earl, I just don't see how the SDA guy can make that claim. I will let others give you the ammunition in explaining the passages. John Chaney "having been firmly rooted and now being built up in Him and established in your faith . . ." (Colossians 2:7 NASB)
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
5 Solas		#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 264 07/17/08 15:41:28 Administrator	earl40 wrote: As you can readily see, the voice of the Son of God of John 5:25-29 which raises the dead has to be the same voice as the archangel of 1 Thessalonians 4:16, if it is the voice of the archangel that effectively raises the dead. The two voices described in the two texts have to be identical and hence from the same Person. Just for fun, I just quoted you does this mean we are the same posters? Using his form of logic, I could equally say Jesus is Elvis! To understand this Nashville logic, note that Jesus is said to have the voice of an angel (1 Thess. 4:16) and that he is referred to as "king" (Matt. 27:37; Rev. 19:16, etc.). Now, as everyone knows, Elvis was called "the king" and he had the voice of an angel! Therefore, Jesus must be Elvis Presley. Right? Uhmmm. Ok enough fun. The JWs say, "Michael the great prince is none other than Jesus Christ himself" (The Watchtower, 1984, p. 29). However, this is what the Bible says, "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" (1Thess. 4:16). Paul identifies three "withs" (en) happening in this verse: (1) there is a shout, (2) a trump of God sounds, and (3) the voice of an archangel is present with the Lord's descent. The JWs say that Jesus and the archangel here are the same. If that is so, if Jesus' descent from heaven "with the voice of an archangel" makes Him (as JWs claim) the archangel Michael, then does His descent "with the trumpet of God" not also make Him God? JWs reject this. Moreover, Hebrews 1:5-8 draws a clear distinction between Jesus and angels (see Heb. 2:5 as well). In addition, there is a clear distinction in the power and authority between Michael and Jesus. Whereas, Michael would not dare bring a railing judgment against the devil (Jude 9; cf. 2 Pet. 2:11), Jesus once declared that Satan, "was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own resources, for he is a liar and the father of it" (John 8:44). Jesus did not approach the subject of rebuking Satan with the same hesitation as godly angels like Michael. Jesus, the Lord (Matt. 28:18), boldly called the devil a murderer and liar, and declared that "there is no truth in him." The Son of God obviously is not Michael the archangel. As a theologian once stated, "It don't, it can't, therefore it ain't." In Christ, 5 Solas
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
earl40	Thank you	#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 17 07/17/08 20:49:17	It isn't a JW I am speaking with but a SDA member. I agree that the passage says Michael dared not bring an accusation is the penultimate evidence but he explains that away also. Earl,A man married to a girl named Tina.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
5 Solas		#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 265 07/17/08 22:39:56 Administrator	Ellen White makes some of the same assertions as the JWs ("Michael, or Christ, with the angels that buried Moses" (Jude 9, Spiritual Gifts, IV a, p. 158) , etc. http://www.macgregorministries.org/seventh_day_adventists/jesusismichael.html In Christ, 5 Solas Last Edited By: 5 Solas 07/17/08 22:46:00. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
earl40	How did he come up with this and is this right?	#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 18 07/18/08 09:18:17	1. Michael is called "The First" Chief Prince. Daniel 10:13 ["Michael, first of the chief heads"--Young's Literal Translation] VS. "Michael, one of the Chief Princes" Curious if Youngs translation is valid here. Earl,A man married to a girl named Tina.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
5 Solas		#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 267 07/18/08 13:10:14 Administrator	earl40 wrote: 1. Michael is called "The First" Chief Prince. Daniel 10:13 ["Michael, first of the chief heads"--Young's Literal Translation] VS. "Michael, one of the Chief Princes" Curious if Youngs translation is valid here. IMO the Hebrew in Daniel 10 could go either way. Moreover, neither interpretation makes Michael the Christ, if chief prince refers to angels.... Therefore, we have to go back to a general rule of interpretation - interpreting the less clear passages by those that are more clear. I think it would also be good to know a little more about angels: (1) angels are not divine but created beings (Neh. 9:6; Psa. 148:2-5; Col. 1:16, etc.). God is eternal. (2) angels are spirit beings (Heb. 1:14), with no true physical body [composed of ethereal matter, thus allowing them to take on whichever physical form best suits their immediate needs (even human form; Gen 18:2-19:22; John 20:10-14; Acts 12:7-10), but they are not true physical beings - exactly like man]. Being such, they cannot be the savior of elect man. Who is the "second" and "last" man Adam - Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 15:45, 47). I do not believe an angel with mere human form died for me! Rather, I believe the very son of God, a man with a real body (like Adam, like mine, but w/o sin, etc.), lived, died and resurrected to save my soul, et. al. (3), angels cannot die (Luke 20:35-36), which seemingly disqualifies them from being successfully crucified or ever needing to be resurrected. (4) while differences in authority have already been commented upon (Jude 9), angels are not all knowing (1 Pet. 1:12) and thus are not omniscient, like God. (5) the Scripture says humanity was created a little lower than the angels (Psa. 8:5), but that in the end the elect shall judge angels (1 Cor. 6:3). Will we judge Christ? The Scripture says that Christ will be judging humanity (John 5:22, Rom. 2:16, et. al.) and NOT humanity judging Christ. Therefore, if Michael can be shown to be an angel then he cannot be God and the savior of elect men. What does the Scripture say? Michael is identified as an archangel (Jude 9). He is an angel and therefore is not God. Daniel 10:13 describes Michael as "one of the chief princes," therefore this must be stating something about his angelic status as opposed to divine status. Moreover, being "one of the chief princes," possibly indicates that there is more than one archangel, because it places Michael on the same level as the other "chief princes." In addition, Daniel 10:21 describes Michael the archangel as "your prince" and Daniel 12:1 identifies Michael as "the great prince who protects." This may indicate more than one AA or CP. Again in Jude 9, Michael the Archangel calls on the Lord to rebuke Satan. Is he merely calling upon himself? Hey self, rebuke Satan, as I dare not bring a slanderous accusation against him. This makes as much sense as Elvis being Christ. In Christ, 5 Solas Last Edited By: 5 Solas 07/18/08 13:53:38. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
earl40	As you can see The fella	#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 19 07/21/08 08:38:44	in green thinks he has an answer to everything. Including to the Jude 9 passage. I just do not know what to do with his lack of what a "slanderous accusations" is. 2 Peter 2:11 (New International Version) 11yet even angels, although they are stronger and more powerful, do not bring slanderous accusations against such beings in the presence of the Lord. [You see, perfect beings do not engage in slanderous accusations. God is perfect and does not descend to such low methods. The beauty of truth stands on its own feet. Granted that in order to protect the people from deception, and call the Jewish leaaders to repentance, Jesus did give some the label of hippocrits. But, you can't read the tears in His voice as He said it. I wish I had been there to hear just how He said it. Jesus treated even his betrayer with utmost respect, calling him "Friend." Consider carefully what slanderous means and see if it matches what your perception of God is: Slander (n.) A false tale or report maliciously uttered, tending to injure the reputation of another; the malicious utterance of defamatory reports; the dissemination of malicious tales or suggestions to the injury of another. Slander (n.) Disgrace; reproach; dishonor; opprobrium. Slander (n.) Formerly, defamation generally, whether oral or written; in modern usage, defamation by words spoken; utterance of false, malicious, and defamatory words, tending to the damage and derogation of another; calumny. See the Note under Defamation.] This is exactly what happened in Jude 9. Jude 1:9 (New International Version) "9But even the archangel Michael, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" [For correct English, if not speaking in the third person, and meaning that He is caling for His Father to do the rebuking, there is an "s" missing on the end of "rebuke."] It says Michael "did not dare"...... [Why didn't He dare?? I submit that it is against God's Character to bring a railing accusation or slanderous accusation. He didn't need to get into a discussion with Satan who was jumping up and down saying "You can't do that, even though YOU are the resurrection and the life, he is a sinner (recently), and has to have a Saviour before he can go to heaven!!!", but basically said, "[I] the Lord rebuke you. Leave, I'm in charge."] No matter how you cut it it says Michael would not, and if he were Jesus this line would not be there. Try this if Michael is Jesus then you could say this......"9But even JESUS, when he was disputing with the devil about the body of Moses, did not dare to bring a slanderous accusation against him, but said, "The Lord rebuke you!" See how BAD that sounds. [Sounds good to me and matches my understanding of God's Character.] I just does not make any sense if Jesus is Michael. And if Jesus were Michael there would be no problem replacing the names her. Also as far as Jude 9 where Michael the Archangel did not dare to accuse Satan, Jesus Himself both accused and rebuked Satan during His ministry saying "Get behind me Satan" [NO ACCUSATION THERE.] and "the devil was a liar and a murderer from the beginning". [An accurate historical description and not a slanderous accusation. He couldn't contain the tears in His voice as He uttered this to the guilty Jews who were plotting His death right there and trying to trap Him so they could have an excuse to do so. (John .] So in summary for Jude 9, Michael the Archangel calls on the Lord to rebuke Satan. Is he merely calling upon himself? Hey self, rebuke Satan, as I dare not bring a slanderous accusation against him. [Have you ever heard of speaking in the third person? Try this: "Cyril Grainger thinks that Earl Cyril has, although diligent and with a seemingly reasonable point, failed to have conclusive evidence." If the person making the statement, "The Lord rebuke you" knows that the Lord does this, if it is only a created angel, how does the angel know that? Wouldn't it be better known to the Person stating it if that Person is One with the Father. Or if the Person making the statement is the Lord Himself speaking in the third person--argument closed. I think you can see the possibilities here. Consider the closeness or parallel of the statements: "Get thee behind me Satan" or "The Lord rebuke you." By the way, this is a statement and not a calling of anyone to do the rebuking. As soon as the words were out of the mouth, the rebuke was FINAL and COMPLETED! Earl,A man married to a girl named Tina.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
5 Solas		#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 268 07/21/08 13:15:03 Administrator	First, I would remind you - and myself - that our goal is not to win arguments, but to merely authoritatively state the truth. We cannot change hearts - only God can (2 Tim. 2:24-26). There will possibly come a time that you have stated all the truth concerning an issue and then you must simply walk away least you "cast pearls before swine" (Matt. 7:6). Unless God opens a person's eyes they will not and cannot see. Second, Michael is NOT God so he could not bring "judgment" (accusation) upon Satan. Only God - the Lord -can do this. Jesus when He cast out sprits (Matt. 17:18; Mark 1:25, etc.) NEVER had to call upon "the Lord" to do the casting, because He is the Lord. Third, go back to scripture. Hebrews 1 lays out your case for you that Jesus cannot be an angel and thus Michael in Jude 9 is not speaking to himself: 5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, This day have I begotten thee? and again, I will be to him a Father, And he shall be to me a Son? 6 And when he again bringeth in the firstborn into the world he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him. 7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels winds, And his ministers a flame a fire: 8 but of the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever; And the sceptre of uprightness is the sceptre of thy kingdom. Fourth, H4317 - Michael = "who is like God." Is Jesus merely "like God" or is he actually "God" himself? Isa. 9:6, et. al. The name "Michael" nullifies itself as being another name of Jesus simply by definition! By the way, the Hebrew name of Jesus is H3091 - Joshua or Jehoshua = "Jehovah is salvation." But that doesn't make Joshua (the assistant of Moses), Jesus! Last, his explanation is not consistent with 2 Peter 2:11. In Christ, 5 Solas
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
earl40	I guess to his credit	#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 21 07/21/08 17:51:06	He does not say Michael is an angel. He claims that the title of Michael as archangel is just another name for Jesus. I understand everything you say about the situation and am curious concerning about the incarnation and the thought of how that jives with soul sleep and if this has ever been defended to your knowledge by the church in past councils or creeds. Earl,A man married to a girl named Tina.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
5 Solas		#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 269 07/21/08 19:49:40 Administrator	earl40 wrote: He does not say Michael is an angel. He claims that the title of Michael as archangel is just another name for Jesus. I understand everything you say about the situation and am curious concerning about the incarnation and the thought of how that jives with soul sleep and if this has ever been defended to your knowledge by the church in past councils or creeds. The problem here is that Jesus is the Judge and and not a mere "contender" Jude 1:9 (read the Big Loser below). In addition, look at some the passages that have the name - Michael - in them: (1) they either do not make sense if they are Christ - "one of the chief princes (Dan. 10:13) or (2) they call Christ a mere archangel (Jude 1:9) - not the King of kings. Moreover, the significance of names is VERY important in Scripture: i.e. Jesus IS GOD and not merely "like God." Therefore, his "mere" name calling reduces Jesus to something less than He really is. Jesus IS LORD - not a mere archangel. 2 Timothy 3:13 gives him due credit. The notion that souls sleep after death or that they reincarnate was dispelled as early as the 5^th and 6^th century in the combating and condemnation of the Nestorians and of late Arians. Origen, who believed in the preexistence of the soul (but not reincarnation) was condemned by the Second Council of Constantinople in the year 553. You can look at the WCF 32.1 (Of the State of Men after Death, and of the Resurrection of the Dead). Unfortunately, in the area of soul sleep (a false doctrine) he can draw arguments from the likes of Luther who was mistaken on the issue: http://beggarsallreformation.blogspot.com/2006/04/seventh-day-adventist-luther-soul.html There are several books on the topic - I can give you a list if you desire. However, do not enter a debate with him (anyone) on any topic without being prepared (1 Pet. 3:15). In context when the Bible says one sleeps - they are dead. Jesus was raised from "the dead" and not a mere nap (Matt 17:19; John 21:14; Acts 4:10, etc.). Read the Big Loser here: http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:aRDWg0TYIXEJ:www.pcea.org.au/option,com_docman/task,doc_view/gid,42/Itemid,99/+michael+ contending&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=28&gl=us In Christ, 5 Solas Last Edited By: 5 Solas 07/21/08 20:11:40. Edited 2 times.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Quick Reply

Replies

How would you dispute this?	07/17/08 12:54:28	earl40
I don't see how	07/17/08 13:12:57	Perisseuo
Re: How would you dispute this?	07/17/08 15:41:28	5 Solas
Thank you	07/17/08 20:49:17	earl40
Re: How would you dispute this?	07/17/08 22:39:56	5 Solas
How did he come up with this and is this right?	07/18/08 09:18:17	earl40
Re: How would you dispute this?	07/18/08 13:10:14	5 Solas
As you can see The fella	07/21/08 08:38:44	earl40
Re: How would you dispute this?	07/21/08 13:15:03	5 Solas
I guess to his credit	07/21/08 17:51:06	earl40
Re: How would you dispute this?	07/21/08 19:49:40	5 Solas

Add this search to your web page