Anti-christ is a Canadian ?

[Cis.jd]

Satan seems to be one who points out the futility of taking God's Word literally. That is how he decieved Eve. Should we take knowing good and evil as literal, or just some symbolic wisdom? Satan does not have to do much. He just wants the church to do nothing. Seems most agree with him, and choose not to take God at His Word, but excuse themselves from the narrative as being something hard to grasp.

Problem here is that Genesis' creation story isn't to be taken literally, for example you acknowledge the serpent to be satan. But is satan literally a snake? Even if you say "he took the form of one" he was still described to be something that he isn't.. satan is not a literal snake.

Think. Rev contains all things that the devil is going to do and lead himself to.
Imagine if someone wrote about your future ending in something bad (God forbid), you see the details of what you will do that day and how it leads to a negative conclusion. Wouldn't your common sense be to not do anything written there?

 

[ViaCrucis]

God, if you carefully studying HIS WORD yourself. Not traditional Christian church system of belief.

If you want a good Bible study on archangel Michael with all related verses, here you go.

Both Judaism and Christianity have always held to there being a plurality of archangels. Archangels simply being chiefs among the angels.

The notion that Michael is Jesus is an entirely foreign doctrine of the Christian Church, and should be regarded as heresy.

A handful of late thinkers have engaged in wide-eyed speculation over this subject; but their reasoning for doing so is fundamentally flawed. Requiring several layers of presumption and assumption; as well as a disregard for the historical context of Scripture--namely that those who wrote the Scriptures believed in multiple archangels, as this was a ubiquitous belief among 2nd Temple period Jews and, thus, among Christians. Without a clear and explicit revelation, there would have been no reason for early Christians--including the Apostles themselves--to have believed otherwise than what was readily accepted within Judaism.

As such, this notion is at once both novel and heretical; without precedent in biblical, historical, traditional Christian faith and contrary to the received faith of the one and apostolic Christian Church.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Timtofly]

Problem here is that Genesis' creation story isn't to be taken literally, for example you acknowledge the serpent to be satan. But is satan literally a snake? Even if you say "he took the form of one" he was still described to be something that he isn't.. satan is not a literal snake.

Think. Rev contains all things that the devil is going to do and lead himself to.
Imagine if someone wrote about your future ending in something bad (God forbid), you see the details of what you will do that day and how it leads to a negative conclusion. Wouldn't your common sense be to not do anything written there?

God was aware of all that. I do not think Satan is decieved.

 

[TribulationSigns]

Both Judaism and Christianity have always held to there being a plurality of archangels. Archangels simply being chiefs among the angels.

And what angels are they? Some created celestial beings or humans? No, angels simply means messengers. The Archangel is the chief of messengers. Obviously you did not read the study provided in my last post.

The word Archangel simply means the head or chief messenger. It is taken from the two Greek words, [archo], meaning the first, and by extension top, chief or head--and [aggelos] meaning messenger, the one who brings tidings or news. The translation is the chief or top messenger. So "archangel" simply means "highest or greatest messenger." The word [aggelos] (meaning messenger) is also sometimes translated angel, simply because an Angel is a messenger from God.

As we all know, one of the ways God puts forth spiritual truths is in the names that He has assigned in the Bible. From the name Adam, Abram, Israel and David, to Christ, God assigns names that reveal some deeper spiritual truths concerning them. The name Michael is no exception. If we study it carefully and honestly, it gives us great insight to who this top messenger is. It's of Hebrew origin [miykael] and most nearly means "He who is assuredly God". Taken from the root Hebrew words [miy] (who is), [kiy] (assuredly), and ['el] (God). The prepositional prefix [Kiy], has also been understood to mean "certainly" and the scripture translated "who is certainly God" or "who is as God." This meaning is totally consistent with everything in scripture that deals with the work of the messenger Michael. For Christ, the first or chief Messenger of God, has or will do all the things that are assigned to Michael. Indeed, Christ is the Messenger of God that is seen in charge of the army of God. He assuredly is God, and that is what the title that God gave His Messenger "Michael" signifies.

Let's look at some of the argument put forth in opposition to this. One of the first objections by some Christian teachers is that the text says that Michael is "one of the Chief Princes."

Daniel 10:13

• "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia."

Their rationale is that God cannot be "one" of the Chief Princes. However there are two schools of thought on this verse, and they both support the doctrine that Christ indeed can be one of the Chief Princes/Rulers.

1. The reference to Michael as one of the chief rulers or Princes is illustrating Christ's status in the Trinity. In other words, one of the chief rulers or Kings in the Godhead, as demonstrated in verses such as,

Acts 5:31

• "Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins."

God the Father also says that there is no savior but Him. A contradiction? No, because there is one God, but He is revealed in three. Christ is one of the Chief Princes (rulers) in the triune Godhead and He rules with God the father and God the Holy Spirit.

2. The other way that this is understood is that in the Greek this should be rendered first or beginning, rather than one. So that it should read He is the first of the Chief princes. For example, Young's literal Translation reads:

Daniel 10:13

• "And the head of the kingdom of Persia is standing over against me twenty and one days, and lo, Michael, first of the chief heads, hath come to help me..." -YLT

How is this different from Christ declaring in Revelation that He is alpha and Omega, the First and the last. How is His being revealed as the Prince of Princes

{Daniel 8:25 "And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand."" Daniel 8:25}

any different from Him being revealed as the number one, top or chief Prince, or as the first of the Princes, or as the chief Messenger? It all simply points to the fact of Christ being the leader of His people, the king of kings, ruler of rulers, the top or first Messenger.

Revelation 2:8

• "And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;"

Again pointing to the work on the cross by Christ, that He is God the alpha and Omega nd the first resurrected from the dead, that in all things He might have preeminence.

Either way we look at it, whether first of the Chief rulers or one of the chief rulers, both illustrate His rule in the triune Godhead. When Daniel says Michael is the only one to help, this in itself is a confirmation and illustration that this refers to the Messiah. No one else is qualified. Only the top or head Messenger (not arch angel) of God could be the help of the election. Christ is the first Prince who strengthens us and is our help in time of trouble or weakness. This is illustrated again in the following verses of that same chapter.

Daniel 10:21

• "But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince."

Daniel's Prince or ruler is Christ. Period. Not some mighty created being. There is no one that holds with him in those things but Michael, His Prince. Not any other man, not any other angel (Messenger), not any physical army, just this one Prince and head messenger Michael. Michael, which translated means "who is certainly God." This text would be illogical and unbiblical (since we know there is always a remnant and angels of God) until we understand that this Prince is Christ and no one else could help him. Then of course this is perfectly logical, for Christ is the only one that holds with us all in these things. He is our only help! This is the truth noted in scripture which this messenger has shown Daniel. Michael, He who is assuredly God, would be the only one who would help in this time of need. He couldn't trust in earthly princes, his only help comes from the Lord Jesus.

Psalms 146:3-6

• "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
• His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
• Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the LORD his God:
• Which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: which keepeth truth for ever:"

There is no prince, either in heaven or in earth, that anyone can put their trust in to help or strengthen us but Christ our Prince. It is He that makes reconciliation with us to God and who went forth to strengthen the Covenant in His blood

Hebrews 9:16-18
"For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood."

Hebrews 9:16-18).

The same Word of God that was made flesh that the book of John chapter one, reiterates here that He created heaven and earth and all that is therein. He is not an earthly Prince, but Michael, the help of God's people, the hope of all ages and precisely whom this prophesy speaks of.

Note also, that this messenger tells Daniel that Michael is "His Prince." Who is the Prince or ruler of Daniel (and indeed all servants of God) but Christ

Acts 51:3
"Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins."" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px;">Acts 51:3)? He is our Prince who alone holdeth with us in these matters. There is none other name

(Acts 4:12
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

from which we can get help to overcome other than "He who is certainly God." He is the chief ruler in the triune Godhead and who is designated as our Prince (ruler), the only help of God's people. Without this Prince standing for us, we don't stand at all.

The notion that Michael is Jesus is an entirely foreign doctrine of the Christian Church, and should be regarded as heresy.

I agree that false church like Jehovah Witness believe that Michael is Jesus but as created being, not as God himself. But that does not prove your position that Michael is NOT Jesus. The Bible said He is.

A handful of late thinkers have engaged in wide-eyed speculation over this subject; but their reasoning for doing so is fundamentally flawed. Requiring several layers of presumption and assumption; as well as a disregard for the historical context of Scripture--namely that those who wrote the Scriptures believed in multiple archangels, as this was a ubiquitous belief among 2nd Temple period Jews and, thus, among Christians. Without a clear and explicit revelation, there would have been no reason for early Christians--including the Apostles themselves--to have believed otherwise than what was readily accepted within Judaism.

I am more interested in how you handle the Scripture, word to word, to justify your position. Not personal opinion or speculation.

Read the study in entire that explains everything that relates to Archangel Michael. You lack biblical refutation only shows that you do not know what you are talking about. Just want to deny that Michael is Jesus over few false and misunderstood church doctrines.

 

[Dale]

Satan and his third of the angels were booted out of the third heaven eons ago. Satan and his angels realm to freely roam is the second and first heaven. The cosmos and earth.

Satan will be cast down from the second heaven in Revelation 12:7-9, restricted to earth. Satan and his angels's mystical kingdom (not a physical kingdom, like the Israel, the U.S., the EU, etc.) is metaphorically called Babylon the Great.

In Revelation 18, Babylon is fallen is fallen is referring to Satan and his angels being cast down to earth - as God during the second half of the seven years begins a process of dismantling Satan's kingdom.

Dougg: “Satan and his third of the angels were booted out of the third heaven eons ago. Satan and his angels realm to freely roam is the second and first heaven. The cosmos and earth.” Ah, so you say there are two Falls of the Rebel Angels. If so, explain this scripture, if demons are free to roam the cosmos, and especially earth.

And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority
but abandoned their own home — these he has kept in
darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the
great Day. --Jude verse 6 NIV

Dougg, you say that demons are free to roam the cosmos, while Jude says that they are “kept in darkness” and held in “chains for judgment.”


Dougg: “Satan and his angels's mystical kingdom (not a physical kingdom, like the Israel, the U.S., the EU, etc.) is metaphorically called Babylon the Great.”

I can’t follow your reasoning. It is clear from Revelation that Babylon the Great stands for something in this world, although there are difficulties nailing down exactly what.

 

[Cis.jd]

God was aware of all that. I do not think Satan is decieved.

My post was not saying satan is deceived. Re-read it.

 

[SamanthaAnastasia]

And what angels are they? Some created celestial beings or humans? No, angels simply means messengers. The Archangel is the chief of messengers. Obviously you did not read the study provided in my last post.

The word Archangel simply means the head or chief messenger. It is taken from the two Greek words, [archo], meaning the first, and by extension top, chief or head--and [aggelos] meaning messenger, the one who brings tidings or news. The translation is the chief or top messenger. So "archangel" simply means "highest or greatest messenger." The word [aggelos] (meaning messenger) is also sometimes translated angel, simply because an Angel is a messenger from God.

As we all know, one of the ways God puts forth spiritual truths is in the names that He has assigned in the Bible. From the name Adam, Abram, Israel and David, to Christ, God assigns names that reveal some deeper spiritual truths concerning them. The name Michael is no exception. If we study it carefully and honestly, it gives us great insight to who this top messenger is. It's of Hebrew origin [miykael] and most nearly means "He who is assuredly God". Taken from the root Hebrew words [miy] (who is), [kiy] (assuredly), and ['el] (God). The prepositional prefix [Kiy], has also been understood to mean "certainly" and the scripture translated "who is certainly God" or "who is as God." This meaning is totally consistent with everything in scripture that deals with the work of the messenger Michael. For Christ, the first or chief Messenger of God, has or will do all the things that are assigned to Michael. Indeed, Christ is the Messenger of God that is seen in charge of the army of God. He assuredly is God, and that is what the title that God gave His Messenger "Michael" signifies.

Let's look at some of the argument put forth in opposition to this. One of the first objections by some Christian teachers is that the text says that Michael is "one of the Chief Princes."

Daniel 10:13

• "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia."

Their rationale is that God cannot be "one" of the Chief Princes. However there are two schools of thought on this verse, and they both support the doctrine that Christ indeed can be one of the Chief Princes/Rulers.

1. The reference to Michael as one of the chief rulers or Princes is illustrating Christ's status in the Trinity. In other words, one of the chief rulers or Kings in the Godhead, as demonstrated in verses such as,

Acts 5:31

• "Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins."

God the Father also says that there is no savior but Him. A contradiction? No, because there is one God, but He is revealed in three. Christ is one of the Chief Princes (rulers) in the triune Godhead and He rules with God the father and God the Holy Spirit.

2. The other way that this is understood is that in the Greek this should be rendered first or beginning, rather than one. So that it should read He is the first of the Chief princes. For example, Young's literal Translation reads:

Daniel 10:13

• "And the head of the kingdom of Persia is standing over against me twenty and one days, and lo, Michael, first of the chief heads, hath come to help me..." -YLT

How is this different from Christ declaring in Revelation that He is alpha and Omega, the First and the last. How is His being revealed as the Prince of Princes

{Daniel 8:25 "And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand."" Daniel 8:25}

any different from Him being revealed as the number one, top or chief Prince, or as the first of the Princes, or as the chief Messenger? It all simply points to the fact of Christ being the leader of His people, the king of kings, ruler of rulers, the top or first Messenger.

Revelation 2:8

• "And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;"

Again pointing to the work on the cross by Christ, that He is God the alpha and Omega nd the first resurrected from the dead, that in all things He might have preeminence.

Either way we look at it, whether first of the Chief rulers or one of the chief rulers, both illustrate His rule in the triune Godhead. When Daniel says Michael is the only one to help, this in itself is a confirmation and illustration that this refers to the Messiah. No one else is qualified. Only the top or head Messenger (not arch angel) of God could be the help of the election. Christ is the first Prince who strengthens us and is our help in time of trouble or weakness. This is illustrated again in the following verses of that same chapter.

Daniel 10:21

• "But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince."

Daniel's Prince or ruler is Christ. Period. Not some mighty created being. There is no one that holds with him in those things but Michael, His Prince. Not any other man, not any other angel (Messenger), not any physical army, just this one Prince and head messenger Michael. Michael, which translated means "who is certainly God." This text would be illogical and unbiblical (since we know there is always a remnant and angels of God) until we understand that this Prince is Christ and no one else could help him. Then of course this is perfectly logical, for Christ is the only one that holds with us all in these things. He is our only help! This is the truth noted in scripture which this messenger has shown Daniel. Michael, He who is assuredly God, would be the only one who would help in this time of need. He couldn't trust in earthly princes, his only help comes from the Lord Jesus.

Psalms 146:3-6

• "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
• His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
• Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the LORD his God:
• Which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: which keepeth truth for ever:"

There is no prince, either in heaven or in earth, that anyone can put their trust in to help or strengthen us but Christ our Prince. It is He that makes reconciliation with us to God and who went forth to strengthen the Covenant in His blood

Hebrews 9:16-18
"For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood."

Hebrews 9:16-18).

The same Word of God that was made flesh that the book of John chapter one, reiterates here that He created heaven and earth and all that is therein. He is not an earthly Prince, but Michael, the help of God's people, the hope of all ages and precisely whom this prophesy speaks of.

Note also, that this messenger tells Daniel that Michael is "His Prince." Who is the Prince or ruler of Daniel (and indeed all servants of God) but Christ

Acts 51:3
"Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins."" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px;">Acts 51:3)? He is our Prince who alone holdeth with us in these matters. There is none other name

(Acts 4:12
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

from which we can get help to overcome other than "He who is certainly God." He is the chief ruler in the triune Godhead and who is designated as our Prince (ruler), the only help of God's people. Without this Prince standing for us, we don't stand at all.


I agree that false church like Jehovah Witness believe that Michael is Jesus but as created being, not as God himself. But that does not prove your position that Michael is NOT Jesus. The Bible said He is.



I am more interested in how you handle the Scripture, word to word, to justify your position. Not personal opinion or speculation.

Read the study in entire that explains everything that relates to Archangel Michael. You lack biblical refutation only shows that you do not know what you are talking about. Just want to deny that Michael is Jesus over few false and misunderstood church doctrines.

That doesn’t make any sense. The Bible mentions a hierarchy of angels, not just archangels. The seraphim, cherubim, thrones/ophanim, archangels, angels.
The seraphim, cherubim, and thrones are higher than archangels.
and if Michael is supposed to represent Jesus then who is Gabriel because he is also an archangel?

 

[TribulationSigns]

That doesn’t make any sense. The Bible mentions a hierarchy of angels, not just archangels. The seraphim, cherubim, thrones/ophanim, archangels, angels.
The seraphim, cherubim, and thrones are higher than archangels.
and if Michael is supposed to represent Jesus then who is Gabriel because he is also an archangel?

read this to find out who is Cherubim.

 

[Douggg]

Dougg, you say that demons are free to roam the cosmos, while Jude says that they are “kept in darkness” and held in “chains for judgment.”

No, I said Satan and his thirds of the angels. I did not say anything about demons.

Yes, there are a group of angels who got involved in sex with human women, which resulted in the giants
who were around in the days before and after the flood. Because of that particular sin, God bound them in chains taken out of circulation where they cannot do that same thing again.

 

[TribulationSigns]

No, I said Satan and his thirds of the angels. I did not say anything about demons.

oh brother.

tell us what is the difference between Satan’s angels and demons?

Yes, there are a group of angels who got involved in sex with human women, which resulted in the giants
who were around in the days before and after the flood. Because of that particular sin, God bound them in chains taken out of circulation where they cannot do that same thing again.

The Son of God were not created beings in heaven called the angels. They are men - the professed MESSENGERS (men) of God who were lusted after heather females outside God’s camp.

You think it’s about the angels having sex with women? You’re brainwashed by false fantasy of men.

 

[Timtofly]

My post was not saying satan is deceived. Re-read it.

Your post does not equate common sense to being decieved. I did.

Satan will get what he thinks he wants. Or Satan will not get what he wants. Either way Satan is removed regardless of what Satan wants or Satan gets.

If you were given a birthday present and knew it would be taken away in one week, would you use it for that week, or not even open it, but let it sit the whole week unopened?

 

[Cis.jd]

Your post does not equate common sense to being decieved. I did.

Satan will get what he thinks he wants. Or Satan will not get what he wants. Either way Satan is removed regardless of what Satan wants or Satan gets.

If you were given a birthday present and knew it would be taken away in one week, would you use it for that week, or not even open it, but let it sit the whole week unopened?

Your analogy of the birthday present is unrelated to even the premise of the discussion. But just for the sake of answering it, i would go for the later just leave it because it is useless. Again, this analogy has no connection to the logic and context of my argument, it's as if you are trying to find an answer to show your side makes sense, not even realizing that your response is irrelevant.

Now to bring you back: You have an evil emperor who is trying to conquer a land; he has builds a plan and course of action to "get what he wants (as you put it).. now, there is this manuscript that says if he executes this plan his goal will result into his demise. You think he would still go for that plan or would he conceive a different plan to get what he wants?

 

[ViaCrucis]

And what angels are they? Some created celestial beings or humans? No, angels simply means messengers. The Archangel is the chief of messengers. Obviously you did not read the study provided in my last post.

The word Archangel simply means the head or chief messenger. It is taken from the two Greek words, [archo], meaning the first, and by extension top, chief or head--and [aggelos] meaning messenger, the one who brings tidings or news. The translation is the chief or top messenger. So "archangel" simply means "highest or greatest messenger." The word [aggelos] (meaning messenger) is also sometimes translated angel, simply because an Angel is a messenger from God.

As we all know, one of the ways God puts forth spiritual truths is in the names that He has assigned in the Bible. From the name Adam, Abram, Israel and David, to Christ, God assigns names that reveal some deeper spiritual truths concerning them. The name Michael is no exception. If we study it carefully and honestly, it gives us great insight to who this top messenger is. It's of Hebrew origin [miykael] and most nearly means "He who is assuredly God". Taken from the root Hebrew words [miy] (who is), [kiy] (assuredly), and ['el] (God). The prepositional prefix [Kiy], has also been understood to mean "certainly" and the scripture translated "who is certainly God" or "who is as God." This meaning is totally consistent with everything in scripture that deals with the work of the messenger Michael. For Christ, the first or chief Messenger of God, has or will do all the things that are assigned to Michael. Indeed, Christ is the Messenger of God that is seen in charge of the army of God. He assuredly is God, and that is what the title that God gave His Messenger "Michael" signifies.

Let's look at some of the argument put forth in opposition to this. One of the first objections by some Christian teachers is that the text says that Michael is "one of the Chief Princes."

Daniel 10:13

• "But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia."

Their rationale is that God cannot be "one" of the Chief Princes. However there are two schools of thought on this verse, and they both support the doctrine that Christ indeed can be one of the Chief Princes/Rulers.

1. The reference to Michael as one of the chief rulers or Princes is illustrating Christ's status in the Trinity. In other words, one of the chief rulers or Kings in the Godhead, as demonstrated in verses such as,

Acts 5:31

• "Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins."

God the Father also says that there is no savior but Him. A contradiction? No, because there is one God, but He is revealed in three. Christ is one of the Chief Princes (rulers) in the triune Godhead and He rules with God the father and God the Holy Spirit.

2. The other way that this is understood is that in the Greek this should be rendered first or beginning, rather than one. So that it should read He is the first of the Chief princes. For example, Young's literal Translation reads:

Daniel 10:13

• "And the head of the kingdom of Persia is standing over against me twenty and one days, and lo, Michael, first of the chief heads, hath come to help me..." -YLT

How is this different from Christ declaring in Revelation that He is alpha and Omega, the First and the last. How is His being revealed as the Prince of Princes

{Daniel 8:25 "And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand."" Daniel 8:25}

any different from Him being revealed as the number one, top or chief Prince, or as the first of the Princes, or as the chief Messenger? It all simply points to the fact of Christ being the leader of His people, the king of kings, ruler of rulers, the top or first Messenger.

Revelation 2:8

• "And unto the angel of the church in Smyrna write; These things saith the first and the last, which was dead, and is alive;"

Again pointing to the work on the cross by Christ, that He is God the alpha and Omega nd the first resurrected from the dead, that in all things He might have preeminence.

Either way we look at it, whether first of the Chief rulers or one of the chief rulers, both illustrate His rule in the triune Godhead. When Daniel says Michael is the only one to help, this in itself is a confirmation and illustration that this refers to the Messiah. No one else is qualified. Only the top or head Messenger (not arch angel) of God could be the help of the election. Christ is the first Prince who strengthens us and is our help in time of trouble or weakness. This is illustrated again in the following verses of that same chapter.

Daniel 10:21

• "But I will shew thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth: and there is none that holdeth with me in these things, but Michael your prince."

Daniel's Prince or ruler is Christ. Period. Not some mighty created being. There is no one that holds with him in those things but Michael, His Prince. Not any other man, not any other angel (Messenger), not any physical army, just this one Prince and head messenger Michael. Michael, which translated means "who is certainly God." This text would be illogical and unbiblical (since we know there is always a remnant and angels of God) until we understand that this Prince is Christ and no one else could help him. Then of course this is perfectly logical, for Christ is the only one that holds with us all in these things. He is our only help! This is the truth noted in scripture which this messenger has shown Daniel. Michael, He who is assuredly God, would be the only one who would help in this time of need. He couldn't trust in earthly princes, his only help comes from the Lord Jesus.

Psalms 146:3-6

• "Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom there is no help.
• His breath goeth forth, he returneth to his earth; in that very day his thoughts perish.
• Happy is he that hath the God of Jacob for his help, whose hope is in the LORD his God:
• Which made heaven, and earth, the sea, and all that therein is: which keepeth truth for ever:"

There is no prince, either in heaven or in earth, that anyone can put their trust in to help or strengthen us but Christ our Prince. It is He that makes reconciliation with us to God and who went forth to strengthen the Covenant in His blood

Hebrews 9:16-18
"For where a testament is, there must also of necessity be the death of the testator.
For a testament is of force after men are dead: otherwise it is of no strength at all while the testator liveth. Whereupon neither the first testament was dedicated without blood."

Hebrews 9:16-18).

The same Word of God that was made flesh that the book of John chapter one, reiterates here that He created heaven and earth and all that is therein. He is not an earthly Prince, but Michael, the help of God's people, the hope of all ages and precisely whom this prophesy speaks of.

Note also, that this messenger tells Daniel that Michael is "His Prince." Who is the Prince or ruler of Daniel (and indeed all servants of God) but Christ

Acts 51:3
"Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour, for to give repentance to Israel, and forgiveness of sins."" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 255); border-bottom-style: dotted; border-bottom-width: 1px;">Acts 51:3)? He is our Prince who alone holdeth with us in these matters. There is none other name

(Acts 4:12
"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."

from which we can get help to overcome other than "He who is certainly God." He is the chief ruler in the triune Godhead and who is designated as our Prince (ruler), the only help of God's people. Without this Prince standing for us, we don't stand at all.


I agree that false church like Jehovah Witness believe that Michael is Jesus but as created being, not as God himself. But that does not prove your position that Michael is NOT Jesus. The Bible said He is.



I am more interested in how you handle the Scripture, word to word, to justify your position. Not personal opinion or speculation.

Read the study in entire that explains everything that relates to Archangel Michael. You lack biblical refutation only shows that you do not know what you are talking about. Just want to deny that Michael is Jesus over few false and misunderstood church doctrines.

And, again, the problem is the failure to recognize the context of first century Judaism. What did "archangel" mean as understood by those using the term? They used it to refer to a high-ranking angel.

Angels identified as archangels include Michael, Gabriel, and Raphiel, these three are mentioned by name in Scripture (Raphiel is mentioned in Tobit, and thus is not mentioned in the Protestant Canon). But these are not the only angels which have historically been identified as archangels.

The use of "prince" by Daniel to refer to Michael simply refers to Michael being one of the chief angel, specifically the angel put in charge over Israel--that's what the text says.

"Daniel can have no prince but Christ" isn't exegesis, it's only an assertion--and one that does not have biblical backing.

No amount of playing around with words or creative attempts at eisegesis is going to get around the fact that when we read the Bible we have an obligation to understand what the writers meant.

The Michael is Christ theory simply does not work. The Apostles would have understood "archangel" to mean one of the chief angels, of which there were many and that they were angels.

Further, Michael means "Who is like God?" It comes from the Hebrew my+kha meaning "who [is] like" It is a question, not a statement. The statement is that there is none like God, God alone is like God. It is not a statement of Michael's divinity, it is a statement of Michael's worship of the one and true God.

Michael is our fellow servant and fellower worshiper of Jesus Christ.

Jesus Christ is owed our worship as true and very God and Lord.
Michael does not. Anyone who worships Michael worships a mere creature and fellow servant, not the Creator of heaven and earth.

Jesus is God.
Michael is not.

Michael worship is idolatry. And the holy archangel himself would refuse to be worshiped, as he is a faithful servant of our Lord and God.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[TribulationSigns]

Blah, blah, blah,Blah, blah, blah,Blah, blah, blah,Blah, blah, blah,Blah, blah, blah,Blah, blah, blah,Blah, blah, blah,Blah, blah, blah,Blah, blah, blah,Blah, blah, blah,Blah, blah, blah,Blah, blah, blah,Blah, blah, blah,Blah, blah, blah,Blah, blah, blah,Blah, blah, blah,Blah, blah, blah.............

-CryptoLutheran

All I see is nothing but your private opinion and speculations. Not able to quote even ONE Scripture to defend your nonsenses. Not exactly a Bible Student, aren't you, but layman deceived by false teachers.

Read the studies provided filled with all Scripture related to Archangel and Michael when you have time. You do not seem to understand who are actually Christ's people whom He died for. If you don't have a biblical refutation or know a verse, don't bother to respond. Your flawed doctrine remains refuted.

Bye.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I can see that you could not even quote ONE Scripture to defend your position. Not exactly a Bible Student, aren't you, but layman deceived by false teachers.

Read the studies provided filled with all Scripture related to Archangel and Michael when you have time. You do not seem to understand who are Christ's people whom He died for. If you don't have a biblical refutation or know a verse, don't bother to respond. Your flawed doctrine remains refuted.

Bye.

Peace homie.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Dale]

No, I said Satan and his thirds of the angels. I did not say anything about demons.

Yes, there are a group of angels who got involved in sex with human women, which resulted in the giants
who were around in the days before and after the flood. Because of that particular sin, God bound them in chains taken out of circulation where they cannot do that same thing again.

Dougg, when did you come up with this distinction between fallen angels and demons? Do you also distinguish between devils and demons?

Dougg: “Yes, there are a group of angels who got involved in sex with human women … ”

So there are no fallen angels who had sex with human men? Or maybe all fallen angels are male? I don’t believe that devils, demons, or whatever you want to call them have bodies. Have you noticed that there is no passage in the Bible that forbids people from having sex with demons? That’s because it isn’t possible. Since it isn’t possible the Bible doesn’t bother to prohibit it.

 

[Dale]

It think the KJV was translated by teams and not one person. Anyway, I don't really care to get into all that.

The little horn person in Daniel 8 indicates he rises to power by craft. And that is how his association with Satan begins, through Kabbalah..

Here is a link to the rise and fall of Rabbi Jospeh Reina using one of the principles of kabbalah of controlling angels...and how it can go awry.

Dreaming of Moshiach: The Story: Rise and Fall of Rabbi Joseph Della Reina

That would only apply to Jewish angels. Since we’re in the Christian era, there are no Jewish angels.

 

[Dale]

No, Satan is not left out of chapter 13. He is worshiped in chapter 13. You just have to know how.

The False Prophet has the world make an image to beast (the little horn>Antichrist>beast) person. i.e. the mortally wounded, but healed, head on the beast coming out of the sea.

14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.


So the people of the world makes the image. A statue image of the beast person. Just like the children of Israel made an image of the golden calf.

It will be lifeless, and likely covered in gold. And placed on the temple courtyard, out in the open where everyone can see it.

Then, the false prophet person does a huge miracle (a lying mircale ) and brings the image to life. But it will actually be Satan incarnating the image - making it appear to come to life. And everyone will be required to worship the image. That's how Satan will be worshiped.

15 And he had power to give life unto the image of the beast, that the image of the beast should both speak, and cause that as many as would not worship the image of the beast should be killed.

Dougg, why do you insist that Satan can work miracles?

Dougg: << Then, the false prophet person does a huge miracle (a lying mircale ) and brings the image to life. >>

It would be easy to make a robot that would move and speak, and look like any person, with today’s technology. So we could wind up with foolish people worshiping a robot of some leader. We don’t have to believe that Satan can work miracles to see that this can happen.

 

[Douggg]

Dougg, why do you insist that Satan can work miracles?

Dougg: << Then, the false prophet person does a huge miracle (a lying mircale ) and brings the image to life. >>

It would be easy to make a robot that would move and speak, and look like any person, with today’s technology. So we could wind up with foolish people worshiping a robot of some leader. We don’t have to believe that Satan can work miracles to see that this can happen.

The bible calls them lying wonders.

The statue image will not be robot or a trickery of technology - as modern man would see through that immediately and not be convinced of any seemingly miracle to have taken place. It will have to be something unexplainable except by the power of beast person's claim to have achieved God-hood allowing the false prophet to do such miracles in his presence.

14 And deceiveth them that dwell on the earth by the means of those miracles which he had power to do in the sight of the beast; saying to them that dwell on the earth, that they should make an image to the beast, which had the wound by a sword, and did live.

 

[Douggg]

Dougg, when did you come up with this distinction between fallen angels and demons? Do you also distinguish between devils and demons?

Dougg: “Yes, there are a group of angels who got involved in sex with human women … ”

So there are no fallen angels who had sex with human men? Or maybe all fallen angels are male? I don’t believe that devils, demons, or whatever you want to call them have bodies. Have you noticed that there is no passage in the Bible that forbids people from having sex with demons? That’s because it isn’t possible. Since it isn’t possible the Bible doesn’t bother to prohibit it.

The fallen angels are not the demons. Demons are disembodied spirits. The bible calls them "uncleaned" spirits. Where did they come from? The nephillim were a race created by the interaction of the fallen angels who had sex with earth women (it does not indicate whether they had sex with men or not). But it does indicate woman.

When the nephillim died, their bodies were emptied of the spirit within, which became the demons, displacing the traits of the fallen angels who began the race.