Do Baptists still believe that Michael Archangel, is "Jesus", like others?

Shiny Gospel Shoes said:

Please re-ask the question in the forum. I may have simply missed it. Thank you.

Click to expand...

Michael is described as "one of the chief princes". How would this fit Jesus?



Also this question/challenge, phrased multiple ways, that you have not addressed:

Hentenza said:

you are yet to prove that the majority of historical Baptists agreed with Spurgeon and Gill in this matter.

Click to expand...

Hentenza said:

1. Two people's belief does not prove that the Historical Baptists believed the same. That is for you to prove.

Click to expand...

Keachian said:

The question is about whether Gill and Spurgeon are representative of the majority of historical Baptists, I and others have laid out enough evidence I feel to prove that they are not.

Click to expand...

Shiny Gospel Shoes said:

I was hoping that the question that is thought I had not addressed would have been represented by this time, as I have been awaiting it, eagerly.

Therefore, brother, please re-post the question in a new reply, so that I may address it for sure, and not leave anything in suspense.

There is so much more about this subject I would like to ask the Baptists about.

Click to expand...

The question is above your post.

The question everyone is wanting you to answer is How could Jesus be a chief prince? That is what is said Michael is,however, Jesus Is The King, The only Begotten Son, Prince of Peace, The Man God.

The other question is why do you pick to people long dead as representatives of the Baptist Faith? I have stated they were both Calvinist which is a sect of Baptist but not main stream. Also Both the people you name there ministry was in question during their life time.

I think what people are saying is how can we move on to other question when you won't except the answers given, and will not answer their questions.

Are you hear to teach us or learn, because everyone is trying to share, they are trying to show where you error in how you think of baptist.

SGS,
Do not ever seek to bury an agenda in a PM to me again and do not ever again ask me to do your homework. i have played jack ass this time for you but never, never again. Tall asked you, "Why don't you first answer the question of how Jesus could be "one of the chief princes"?" and the question deserves an answer. Do not ever seek to divide Tall and I again in secret, Tall and I have enough differences without you hauling a pig in a poke around to stir trouble in the Body of Christ so... answer his question.

Shiny Gospel Shoes said:

The particular question as noted, was answered in the OP, see Link therein, section "[5] The Two Princes" [for those that just happened to not see it at the first, as sometimes happens].

Click to expand...

Walls of SDA propaganda are not worth the time that it took to write let alone the time it takes to copy and paste, EGW was a conartist rotte to the core, so caught up in the power that haSatan had granted her through her deception she was deceived and being deceived whenever someone questioned her pet doctrines out came her trump of miraculous vision on command the Sabbath problem of 6pm-6pm was gone with no comfort to her flock. With her miraculous vision on command gone was the closed judgement as her congregation grew by natural progeny as well as through evangelism. Gone was the stifling "reformation" dress as she found it most uncomfortable, it is a wonder you are vegetarian when she could not keep the same.

Shiny Gospel Shoes said:

Yet the question was already answered was it not, not about whether it was liked, right? Simply denying 2+2=4, by closing one's eyes, does not change the answer to something other than 4, does it?

Click to expand...

Though there are proofs of 2+2=4 that take up as much if not more space than your walls of text yet we also can say so much quicker and easily, are you able to do so or not? If the truth is not simple and perspicuous then it hardly is truth, especially since this so called truth has not been communicated by the Holy Spirit to the believer.

Shiny Gospel Shoes said:

I have been awaiting the answer to the question of whether I may ask questions concerning Revelation 12, which would address this concern about length. Short simple questions. Let me know if you would like me to ask them.

Click to expand...

You have the claim it is not your place to ask questions exegete the text if you think it is going to make a difference, however it is not, Baptists have never had the same interpretation of the Apocalypse as the Adventist. I do wonder why you are continuing this farce in sheep's clothing, you have been deceived and will continue to deceive others as long as Ms White holds unwarranted authority over the perspicuity of Scripture discard her and her deceptive heresies! Cling to Christ for who she gave you is not the Christ nor has he any power to save.

Shiny Gospel Shoes said:

Strange, I had thought William Miller was Baptist - Adventist. Ok, I will come back another day to ask some more questions on the subject.

Click to expand...

William Miller repudiated his actions that started the Adventist movement and declared them erroneous.

SGS,
From early on you were noted as a divisive obstacle to the truth and in all records your claimed religion is listed as either Cult or Cultic. You came in here claiming to ask information but immediately began to preach the lies you have been taught by a deceiver. Baptists might debate between our selves but we never teach another Gospel than the one Brother Paul taught as he learned, directly, at the feet of Jesus in Asia Minor.

You have PMed me saying you do not seek to offend but you bludgeon on and do just that as if you are the Christ and can do as you please. If you wish information on that, which we hold dear, ask but do not then preach heresy that is rejected by every Bible based faith group. The New Testament, clearly, teaches that women are never to be seated over the men as a teacher and yet the Adventist is guilty of that very sin and tends to brag of their ability to follow their false teacher.

I pray you begin to seek the One True God and recoil from the heresy you are spreading.

Shiny Gospel Shoes said:

The particular question as noted, was answered in the OP, see Link therein, section "[5] The Two Princes" [for those that just happened to not see it at the first, as sometimes happens].

Click to expand...

I think that people asking would like you to directly address the question rather than refer us to a website.

The website you link to is hard to follow. These is no landing page to summarize the purpose or the site, text is varying in font, multi-colored, bold, and underline, and in general it is hard to find where a particular section starts and ends.

There are references to footnotes in the Geneva bible, which in themselves represent Calvinist theology and are a matter of dispute, based on the conclusions they lead to. The website appears to be from a SDA point of view and I do not see any information referring to who created the website or their education to provide any sort of evidence that the website provides sound theological information.

You also can ask a question about Revelation 12, but you should not try to persuade us of your theological stance or argue the point by asking more questions or pointing to additional quotes or parsing down scripture to meet what you want.

The guidelines for these forums dictate that you should not teach or debate in someone else's faith group.

while this one said to me he had refused to reply to Tall because the answer ti his question was wrapped inside the page he had linked to, that is completely rude as an answer goes. As for the design of that site, it is mostly copied stock and the designer did not only not include credits on the viewable page, I could not find where he took credit for that mess in the Source Code nor in the CSS code pages. I must believe the Web Master that wrote that site was not very thrilled with his or her work either.

I will say that in all the years I authored web site, I never created anything that unpleasing to the eye and difficult to read. It looks much like the author never expected much traffic there and that is good because it is very dreary in appearance. I would never want mu Church nor the Baptists to be associated with such a dreary work.

I think he must have me on ignore. He literally asked the same thing about what questions after I posted them repeatedly on a different topic on the Adventist sanctuary teaching.

Shiny Gospel Shoes said:

The particular question as noted, was answered in the OP, see Link therein, section "[5] The Two Princes"

Click to expand...

from the article:

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]here are two Main "princes"[rulers] …

[1.] The Good [JESUS/MICHAEL, etc], the True and Everlasting "Prince" [GOD]
[2.] The Wicked [Satan/Dragon/Serpent/Devil, etc], the usurping "prince" [creature]
[/FONT]

Click to expand...

[FONT=Times New Roman, serif][/FONT]So you want us to buy the logic that puts Jesus and Satan on an equal footing and calls Satan one of the "chief princes"?

No thanks.

tall73 said:

from the article:

So you want us to buy the logic that puts Jesus and Satan on an equal footing and calls Satan one of the "chief princes"?

No thanks.

Click to expand...

Because i have never allowed any Mormon to lead the conversation I am not sure they use this to make their claim that Jesus and Satan are equal and brothers making both "the Son of God" because I have always used the Nave's Topical study to lead the conversation. This does, in these last days, see to be gaining footing with the lost man.