Jesus as Michael

[faroukfarouk]

And HE is still building THE HOUSE and is a SON over HIS FATHER's HOUSE and faithful in all HIS FATHER's possessions

I love Ephesians 1, which culminates in the Lord Jesus as head over all things to the church; a great passage.

 

[miknik5]

I love Ephesians 1, which culminates in the Lord Jesus as head over all things to the church; a great passage.

And as HEAD, HE is able to direct the members of HIS BODY as HE purposes for the building up of THE BODY until we all reach the UNITY of THE FAIRH

And that is a faith directed in and on HIM who is both the foundation and the head of HIS BODY...which is THE CHURCH/HIS BRIDE

Our "work" is to REMAIN IN HIM and to not "go out" from HIM

 

[Basil the Great]

I doubt very much that Jesus and Michael are the same.

 

[amadeois]

The Bride is the New Jerusalem dressed as a bride, directly from Heaven.

The head marrying the body?

They are together.

Read Revelation 21.

 

[miknik5]

The Bride is the New Jerusalem dressed as a bride, directly from Heaven.

The head marrying the body?

They are together.

Read Revelation 21.

Or the BRIDEGROOM marrying THE BRIDE who has the RIGHT WEDDIMG GARMENT

See John 3 and Mathew 22

These are the White Robes mentioned in Revelation

 

[amadeois]

Not the church.

 

[miknik5]

Not the church.

Yes the church, the bride, the body. One and the same signifying those who have been baptized into Christ and reborn of His Life-giving Soirit through faith in The Gospel. These are those who have been washed and covered by the blood of the lamb

 

[amadeois]

My sister, John 3 is inviting all kind of people to that wrdding, good and bad people.
Here He wanted to mention that many people will come to the wedding but ONLY A FEW will be chosen. Those are Jesus true friends. Friends from the heart and mind, those that Jesus knows their hearts and see them that they really love Him and also His Father.

Matthew is presenting Jesus' first miracle when He was attending a wedding, not His wedding.

YOUu should take a look at the following verses:

Revelation 21:9-11

9. "And there came unto me (John) one of the seven angels which had the 7 vials full of the 7 last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife."

10. "And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,"

11. "Having the glory of God: and her light was like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;"

And the description of the city continues through verse 27.

SHOULD I WRITE MORE

THE WORD OF GOD IS VERY CLEAR.

THE LAMB'S WIFE IS THE NEW JERUSALEM.

PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

 

[miknik5]

My sister, John 3 is inviting all kind of people to that wrdding, good and bad people.
Here He wanted to mention that many people will come to the wedding but ONLY A FEW will be chosen. Those are Jesus true friends. Friends from the heart and mind, those that Jesus knows their hearts and see them that they really love Him and also His Father.

Matthew is presenting Jesus' first miracle when He was attending a wedding, not His wedding.

YOUu should take a look at the following verses:

Revelation 21:9-11

9. "And there came unto me (John) one of the seven angels which had the 7 vials full of the 7 last plagues, and talked with me, saying, Come hither, I will shew thee the bride, the Lamb's wife."

10. "And he carried me away in the spirit to a great and high mountain, and shewed me that great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of heaven from God,"

11. "Having the glory of God: and her light was like a jasper stone, clear as crystal;"

And the description of the city continues through verse 27.

SHOULD I WRITE MORE

THE WORD OF GOD IS VERY CLEAR.

THE LAMB'S WIFE IS THE NEW JERUSALEM.

PLAIN AND SIMPLE.

and Matthew 22 shows that not all can come to the wedding feast of the lamb. Only those who have the right wedding garment which the bridegroom has given to those who love HIM
Please show me where in John 3 that John is even talking about the bride as much as he is talking about the Bridegroom

 

[EastCoastRemnant]

If Jesus was indeed Michael the Archangel, then Michael would have no need to tell Satan "the LORD rebuke thee". Jude says that Michael dared not bring a railing accusation against Satan, therefore he had to appeal to the Lord to rebuke the Devil. Had Michael been Jesus, He would have rebuked Satan right there. So your doctrine is totally false and must be rejected out of hand. And what exactly do you gain by promoting false doctrines? We will give account for every word which we speak or write.

Yet Michael the archangel, when contending with the devil he disputed about the body of Moses, durst not bring against him a railing accusation, but said, The Lord rebuke thee.

Focus on the statement "durst not bring against him a railing accusation"... this implies that whomever made the statement did not sink down to Satans level because he is the accuser of the brethren, not Christ. The word interpreted "railing" actually means blasphemous in Greek and accusation is from the Greek 'krisis' which is "accusation, condemnation, damnation, judgment." Christ would not use blasphemous judgement but the Righteous judgement of rebuking Satan as Lord.



The next statement is spoken in the third person, delivered with authority because Jesus is The Lord... of Satan and all that is created.
Consider these examples of Jesus using this grammatical style elsewhere in scripture...

Matthew 12:8
For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

Matthew 22:37
Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

 

[amadeois]

We are getting away from the OP and hijacking this thread to another area.

My advice is read all those passages and read Revelation, is so clear.

If you do not want to see it your way, so be it. Is your decision not mine.

Michael is not marrying that bride because He is NOT Jesus.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It's pretty simple:

The Church has never taught that Michael is Jesus. It is found no where in Scripture, it is found no where in the writings of the fathers of the Church, it is completely absent from two thousand years of documented Christian teaching.

If Michael were Christ, someone, somewhere, would have said something.

Pro-tip: If your doctrine has no history beyond a century or two, it's probably a recent innovation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Deadworm]

The Pseudo-Clementine Recognitions and Homilies represent a 4th century compilation of much older Jewish Christian sources, one strand of which identifies Jesus as the archangel Michael. This Jewish Christian sect traces its origin to the Jerusalem church that fled to Pella, east of the Jordan around 66AD. It is possible that Paul's condemnation of angel worship in Colossians 2:18 is directed against this Jewish angelology:

"Do not let anyone who delights in false humility and the worship of angels disqualify you (Colossians 2:18)."

Such angel Christologies represent an early Jewish Christian effort to find a middle ground between a merely human Messiah Prophet and a Messiah as God incarnate.

In this respect, it is striking how NT figures reinterpret the Sinai epiphany as an appearance of an angel:
Stephen: “After forty years had passed, an angel appeared to Moses in the flames of a burning bush in the desert near Mount Sinai (Acts 7:30).".

Paul: "The law was given through angels and entrusted to a mediator (Galatians 3:19)."

An angel, and not God? This new role for angels reflects the Jewish view that no one can see God and live.

 

[amadeois]

Are the false teachers and prophets invading us?

 

[amadeois]

The wedding in Cana of Galilee is in John 2.
Lo
John 3 has no wedding. Jesus talks to Nicodemus.

He is the "ONLY BEGOTTEN SON"
Michael is the chief angel not the only begotten son.

Also regarding white garments.
Read the message of Jesus, not Michael, to the church of Laodicea regarding the white linen clothes.

What is the meaning?

Does Michael wear any special armour to fight the Devil?

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

There is a particular "Angel of the Lord" who is not referred to by any other name, who appears to be the Word. Judges 13:18, Exodus 23:21, Exodus 3:2-4, are some verses which illustrate. "Angel of the Lord", however, can also just refer to a regular angel (for instance, Gabriel appears to the Theotokos and is referred to as an Angel of the Lord).

The Archangel Michael is quite distinct from the Word, otherwise Daniel 10:13 wouldn't call him just one of the princes.

 

[Constantine the Sinner]

It's pretty simple:

The Church has never taught that Michael is Jesus. It is found no where in Scripture, it is found no where in the writings of the fathers of the Church, it is completely absent from two thousand years of documented Christian teaching.

If Michael were Christ, someone, somewhere, would have said something.

Pro-tip: If your doctrine has no history beyond a century or two, it's probably a recent innovation.

-CryptoLutheran

I think Ellen White taught it, and the Seventh Day Adventists hold her to be a prophet.

 

[amadeois]

The word angel:

In the OT is H4397 that is "malak" and means "messenger."

In the NT is G32 that is "aggelos" and means messenger.

 

[amadeois]

Correction: Angels

Plural.

Archangel: G473 archangels

1 Th 4:16
Jude 1:9

 

[Job8]

Christ would not use blasphemous judgement but the Righteous judgement of rebuking Satan as Lord.

You are deliberately missing the point and diverting attention from the main issue. Actually you are twisting this Scripture, which is even more grievous. This Scripture PROVES that Michael is not Jesus, because Jesus is LORD, and His creature calls upon Him to deal with Satan.